## Facts

- Ernest V. Quiroz lived with his father from about 1952 to 1970.
- Quiroz’s father worked from 1948 to 1983 at a plant owned/operated by Reynolds Metal Company and worked with asbestos-containing materials.
- The family alleged asbestos fibers contaminated the father’s work clothes and were brought home, exposing Quiroz over many years (“take-home” exposure).
- Quiroz developed mesothelioma and died in October 2014.
- Plaintiffs alleged Reynolds negligently failed to prevent off-site asbestos exposure by, among other things, warning about risks, providing protective measures, and preventing asbestos from leaving the plant.
- Plaintiffs urged recognition of a duty under Restatement (Third) of Torts §§ 7 and 54 for off-premises harm from conduct or artificial conditions on land.

## Issues

1. Whether an employer that used asbestos in its workplace before 1970 owed a duty to protect members of the public from off-site, take-home asbestos exposure carried on employees’ work clothes.
2. Whether Arizona should adopt the Restatement (Third) of Torts duty framework that generally presumes a duty when an actor’s conduct creates a risk of physical harm.

## Decision

- The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Reynolds and vacated the court of appeals’ contrary decision.
- The Court held Reynolds owed no duty to Quiroz, a non-employee and non-invitee, for secondary, off-site asbestos exposure.
- The Court rejected adopting the Restatement (Third) duty framework as inconsistent with Arizona negligence law.
- The Court reaffirmed that foreseeability is not part of Arizona’s duty analysis and is addressed, if at all, in breach and causation.

## Legal Principles

- In Arizona negligence law, duty is not presumed; the plaintiff must establish duty as a threshold legal element.
- Foreseeability is not used to determine duty; it pertains to breach and proximate cause once duty exists.
- Duty arises from (1) recognized common-law special relationships or (2) public policy, with statutes and regulations as primary indicators of relevant public policy.
- No common-law special relationship exists between an employer and a member of the public who is only an employee’s household family member and not an employee or invitee.
- Courts are reluctant to create a new public-policy duty absent legislative direction, particularly where it would substantially expand potential liability.
- Arizona does not follow the Restatement (Third) “risk-creation” approach that would treat duty as generally owed whenever conduct creates risk.

## Conclusion

The Arizona Supreme Court held that an employer owed no duty to protect a worker’s household family member from pre-1970 take-home asbestos exposure and declined to adopt the Restatement (Third) presumption of duty based on risk creation, reaffirming that duty in Arizona depends on special relationships or statute-based public policy, not foreseeability.


Quiroz v. Alcoa Inc., 416 P.3d 824 (Ariz. 2018)