## Facts

- Bobby Price worked as a maintenance technician at DuPont’s Chestnut Run facility from 1957 to 1991 and allegedly worked with or around asbestos-containing products.
- Patricia Price, Bobby’s spouse, alleged she was exposed to asbestos fibers carried home on Bobby’s clothing, vehicle, and skin, including while handling and washing his work clothes.
- Patricia alleged lung-related injuries (including bilateral interstitial fibrosis and pleural thickening) caused by household exposure to asbestos.
- Patricia sued DuPont in Delaware Superior Court asserting negligence-based claims premised largely on DuPont’s alleged failure to warn and failure to implement workplace measures to prevent asbestos from leaving the facility; Bobby asserted a derivative loss-of-consortium claim.
- After DuPont challenged the pleading, Patricia sought leave to amend; the Superior Court denied leave as futile for lack of a legal duty owed by DuPont to a non-employee spouse.
- Patricia and Bobby appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether an employer owes a tort duty to an employee’s non-employee spouse for alleged take-home asbestos exposure caused by the employer’s alleged failures to warn or to implement protective measures.
2. Whether the amended allegations stated actionable misfeasance or instead alleged nonfeasance requiring a “special relationship” to impose a duty.
3. Whether denial of leave to amend was proper on futility grounds where duty was absent as a matter of law.

## Decision

- The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the order denying leave to amend as futile.
- The court characterized the amended allegations as nonfeasance (omissions such as failing to warn and failing to prevent asbestos from leaving the workplace), not misfeasance.
- Because the complaint did not allege any special relationship between DuPont and Patricia Price, DuPont owed no duty to protect her from the asserted take-home exposure.
- With no duty, the proposed amendment could not state a claim; Bobby Price’s derivative loss-of-consortium claim failed with Patricia’s claim.

## Legal Principles

- Delaware distinguishes misfeasance (affirmative conduct causing injury) from nonfeasance (omissions); nonfeasance generally does not create liability absent a recognized special relationship giving rise to an affirmative duty.
- An employer’s alleged failure to warn or to adopt protective measures to prevent off-site harm is treated as nonfeasance when framed as omissions rather than affirmative risk-creating acts.
- Foreseeability of harm, standing alone, is insufficient to create a duty in a nonfeasance setting without a special relationship.
- Leave to amend may be denied as futile where, even taking the proposed allegations as true, the claim fails as a matter of law for lack of duty.

## Conclusion

The court held that an employee’s spouse alleging take-home asbestos exposure could not state a negligence claim against the employer based on omissions absent a special relationship, and it affirmed denial of leave to amend because the proposed amended complaint remained legally deficient.


Price v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 26 A.3d 162 (Del. 2011)