Simpkins v. CSX Transportation
2012 IL 110662
| Ill. | 2012Background
- Simpkins alleged take-home asbestos exposure from husband’s work clothes at home (1958–1964) caused mesothelioma; CSXT argued no legal duty to a non-employee.
- Plaintiff asserted negligence, willful/wanton conduct, and strict liability for take-home exposure; husband worked for CSXT during 1958–1964.
- Circuit court dismissed under 735 ILCS 5/2-615; appellate court reversed and remanded for duty analysis.
- Simpkins died; daughter substituted as special administrator/plaintiff; issue focused on whether a duty to plaintiff existed.
- Court remanded to allow amendment to plead facts establishing foreseeability and duty; affirmed appellate reversal on different grounds.
- The analysis centers on the four-factor duty test (foreseeability, likelihood, burden, consequences) and whether a special relationship exists.
- Court discusses public policy limits on expanding duty and cites foreign cases recognizing no duty in take-home asbestos contexts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do CSXT owe a duty to Simpkins? | Simpkins contends duty exists if risk is created by defendant’s actions. | No direct relationship; no duty to a non-employee. | No duty established on record; remand allowed to plead further. |
| Is foreseeability adequately pled to establish duty? | Allegations show foreseeable harm from take-home exposure. | Foreseeability not adequately pled with specific facts. | Foreseeability facts insufficient; remand to amend. |
| Are four-factor public-policy considerations controlling? | Factors support duty due to foreseeable risk and social policy. | Policy weighs against imposing duty in take-home exposure. | Court weighs factors; remand is appropriate to develop facts. |
| Was remand proper versus final dismissal? | Amendment could cure pleading defects. | Dismissal was appropriate if no duty; remand unnecessary. | Remand with leave to amend; appellate reversal sustained. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marshall v. Burger King Corp., 222 Ill. 2d 422 (Ill. 2006) (duty analysis and four-factor test in negligence cases)
- Krywin v. Chicago Transit Authority, 238 Ill. 2d 215 (Ill. 2010) (four-factor framework for duty including foreseeability)
- Forsythe v. Clark USA, Inc., 224 Ill. 2d 274 (Ill. 2007) (duty and special relationships considerations)
- Widlowski v. Durkee Foods, 138 Ill. 2d 369 (Ill. 1990) (four-factor foreseeability and public policy in duty)
- Rhodes v. Illinois Central Gulf R.R., 172 Ill. 2d 213 (Ill. 1996) (duty extends to remote strangers if reasonably foreseeable)
- In re New York City Asbestos Litigation, 840 N.E.2d 115 (N.Y. 2005) (limits on expanding asbestos-related duties; public policy)
- In re Certified Question From the Fourteenth District Court of Appeals of Texas, 740 N.W.2d 206 (Mich. 2007) (no duty in take-home asbestos context (state analysis))
- Jones v. Chicago HMO Ltd. of Illinois, 191 Ill. 2d 278 (Ill. 2000) (public policy considerations in duty)