## Facts

- In a Texas negligence action, plaintiffs alleged Carolyn Miller developed mesothelioma from asbestos dust brought home on her stepfather’s work clothes.
- Miller’s stepfather worked for independent contractors hired to reline blast furnaces at a Ford facility in Michigan using asbestos-containing materials.
- Miller never worked for Ford, was never physically present on or near Ford’s property, and had no direct relationship with Ford.
- A Texas jury returned a verdict for plaintiffs; Ford appealed.
- The Texas appellate court applied its choice-of-law rules, concluded Michigan law governed the duty question, and certified a question to the Michigan Supreme Court asking whether Michigan law imposed the duty described in the jury charge on these facts.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Michigan negligence law, a premises owner owes a duty of care to an off-premises household member who was never on or near the premises for asbestos exposure allegedly carried home on an independent contractor employee’s clothing.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court answered the certified question “no.”
- The court held Ford, as premises owner, owed no duty to protect Miller from asbestos exposure via fibers carried home on a household member’s clothing where Miller was never on or near the property and had no further relationship with Ford.
- The court returned the matter to the Texas appellate court for further proceedings consistent with the duty ruling.
- A justice reiterated a personal view that the court lacked authority to answer certified questions, but that view did not affect the court’s substantive holding.

## Legal Principles

- Existence of a legal duty is a question of law for the court.
- Foreseeability of harm may be considered but, standing alone, does not create a duty under Michigan law.
- Premises-liability duties ordinarily run to persons on the land or otherwise in a recognized relationship with the premises owner; Michigan law does not extend that duty to remote, off-premises third parties absent a recognized relationship or other legal basis.
- Michigan law rejects a duty rule that would expose premises owners to indeterminate liability to a broad, hard-to-define class of off-site claimants for “take-home” exposure.

## Conclusion

Michigan law does not impose on a premises owner a negligence duty to protect an off-premises household member—never on or near the premises—from asbestos exposure allegedly carried home on a worker’s clothing when there is no additional relationship between the owner and the injured person.


In re Certified Question from Fourteenth Dist. Court of Appeals of Tex. v. Ford Motor Co., 479 Mich. 498 (2007)