Simpkins v. CSX Transp., Inc., 965 N.E.2d 1092

Annette Simpkins, deceased, sued CSX Transportation for take-home asbestos exposure from her former husband Ronald’s work clothes (1958–1964).
She claimed exposure caused mesothelioma and that CSXT knew or should have known of the risk to her and others similarly situated.
Plaintiff alleged three bases: strict liability for ultrahazardous use of asbestos; negligence for take-home precautions; and willful and wanton misconduct.
Ronald worked at CSXT premises and could have carried asbestos fibers home on clothing, exposing Annette.
Annette died during the suit; Cynthia Simpkins was substituted as special administrator of the estate; the circuit court dismissed the claims under 735 ILCS 5/2-615, appellate court reversed, and the Illinois Supreme Court granted CSXT’s appeal.
The court ultimately held the complaint’s allegations were insufficient to establish a duty of care and remanded to allow amendment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CSXT owed a duty of care to Annette for take-home exposure	Simpkins contends a duty exists due to risk creation; a direct relationship is not required	CSXT argues no duty to a nonemployee without a direct relationship	No duty found on the pleaded facts; remand to permit amendment

Marshall v. Burger King Corp., 222 Ill.2d 422 (2006) (duty analysis factors and threshold question of a duty)
Krywin v. Chicago Transit Authority, 238 Ill.2d 215 (2010) (four-factor duty analysis; relationship concept)
Forsythe v. Clark USA, Inc., 224 Ill.2d 274 (2007) (four-factor duty analysis; special-relations considerations)
Widlowski v. Durkee Foods, 138 Ill.2d 369 (1990) (foreseeability and duty framework; four factors)
Norskog v. Pfiel, 197 Ill.2d 60 (2001) (duty to control source of harm when there is a special relationship)