## Facts

- Larry and Barbara Boynton married in 1962.
- During the 1960s and 1970s, Larry worked at multiple industrial job sites operated by Kennecott Utah Copper, LLC and other premises operators where asbestos was present.
- Barbara did not work at or visit the job sites; the claim was that Larry carried asbestos dust home on his clothes and in his vehicle.
- At home, Barbara allegedly laundered Larry’s dusty work clothes and cleaned the laundry area, resulting in substantial exposure to asbestos fibers.
- Barbara was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma on February 4, 2016, and died on February 27, 2016.
- Larry sued the premises operators for negligence and premises liability, alleging failure to warn of or control the risk of take-home asbestos exposure to household members.

## Issues

1. Whether premises operators owe a duty of care to a worker’s cohabitants for reasonably foreseeable take-home asbestos exposure originating from activities on the premises.
2. Whether a premises operator may be liable under the retained-control exception to independent-contractor nonliability based on control over asbestos-related work.

## Decision

- The Utah Supreme Court reversed summary judgment for certain premises operators on the ground that no duty was owed for take-home exposure.
- The court held that premises operators owe a duty of reasonable care to workers’ cohabitants for foreseeable take-home asbestos exposure.
- The court held that evidence could support a finding that a premises operator retained sufficient control over an independent contractor’s asbestos-related work to trigger the retained-control exception.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Duty in negligence is a question of law informed by foreseeability, the nature of the risk-creating conduct, and public policy considerations.
- A premises operator that engages in affirmative conduct introducing or allowing asbestos hazards in the workplace may owe a duty extending to off-site persons foreseeably harmed through take-home transmission.
- The absence of direct contact or a traditional relationship between the premises operator and the injured cohabitant does not, by itself, preclude a duty where the risk and class of victims are foreseeable.
- Employers are generally not liable for independent contractors’ torts, but may be directly liable when they retain control over the manner or means of the injury-causing work (including through contractual or practical control over asbestos-related activities).
- Summary judgment is improper where record evidence permits a reasonable factfinder to conclude duty exists and/or retained control may apply.

## Conclusion

The Utah Supreme Court recognized a duty of care owed by premises operators to workers’ cohabitants for foreseeable take-home asbestos exposure and clarified that a premises operator may face direct liability when it retains control over the injury-causing aspects of a contractor’s asbestos-related work, requiring further proceedings on remand.


Boynton v. Kennecott Utah Copper, LLC, 2021 UT 67, 500 P.3d 847 (Utah 2021)