## Facts

- Doug Satterfield worked at an aluminum plant operated by Alcoa, Inc. from 1973–1975 and 1978–1984 and was exposed to asbestos during his employment.
- The complaint alleged Alcoa knew since the 1960s that asbestos on work clothing endangered employees and family members through home contact.
- The complaint alleged that by 1972 OSHA regulations discouraged home laundering of asbestos-contaminated clothing and that Alcoa was aware of this guidance.
- The complaint alleged Alcoa failed to provide protective coveralls, failed to launder work clothes, and discouraged use of on-site bathing facilities, resulting in employees wearing contaminated clothing home.
- Amanda Nicole Satterfield, Doug Satterfield’s daughter, allegedly had regular, repeated, close contact over an extended period with her father’s asbestos-contaminated work clothes in the home.
- Amanda developed mesothelioma and died at age 25; her estate pursued a wrongful death claim alleging “take-home” asbestos exposure caused her disease.
- The trial court granted Alcoa judgment on the pleadings under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.03 on the sole ground that Alcoa owed no duty to Amanda as a nonemployee.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, and the Tennessee Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the complaint could survive judgment on the pleadings.

## Issues

1. Whether an employer owes a duty of reasonable care to a nonemployee who regularly and for extended periods comes into close contact with asbestos-contaminated work clothes of the employer’s employees.
2. Whether, under Tennessee negligence law, the pleaded facts sufficiently alleged a foreseeable and unreasonable risk created by the employer’s conduct to withstand judgment on the pleadings.

## Decision

- The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and held the complaint stated a claim sufficient to survive judgment on the pleadings.
- The court held that, on the facts alleged, the employer owed a duty to persons who regularly and for extended periods came into close contact with employees’ asbestos-contaminated work clothes to prevent exposure to a foreseeable and unreasonable risk of harm.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings; the court emphasized it was not deciding breach or causation.
- A separate opinion concurred in part and dissented in part, expressing concern about the breadth of the duty formulation.

## Legal Principles

- In Tennessee negligence law, a duty of care exists when the risk producing the harm is reasonably foreseeable and is not commonly regarded as acceptable.
- Duty analysis focuses on the foreseeability and unreasonableness of the risk created by the defendant’s conduct, not on formal relationship categories or privity.
- Where liability is premised on the defendant’s affirmative, risk-creating conduct, the absence of a “special relationship” does not bar recognition of a duty.
- The duty recognized in take-home asbestos exposure is limited to persons who regularly, repeatedly, and for extended periods came into close contact with contaminated work clothes, excluding casual or attenuated exposures.
- Policy concerns about indeterminate liability do not justify denying duty at the pleading stage where the complaint alleges foreseeable, direct harm from the defendant’s conduct.

## Conclusion

The court held that an employer may owe a duty of reasonable care to nonemployees who have regular, extended, close contact with employees’ asbestos-contaminated work clothing, and it allowed the wrongful death complaint to proceed beyond judgment on the pleadings based on allegations of foreseeable and unreasonable risk created by the employer’s conduct.


Satterfield v. Breeding Insulation Co., 266 S.W.3d 347 (Tenn. 2008)