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
- 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.