Haver v. BNSF Railway Company

Case Updates

The California Supreme Court adopted the so-called “take-home” theory of asbestos liability, which creates an affirmative obligation on employers to warn third parties—with whom they otherwise have no contact—about the risks posed by asbestos that an employee might “take home” with him or her. This expansive theory of liability has been roundly rejected by the overwhelming majority of state courts to consider it.

In its brief, the U.S. Chamber and a broad coalition of associations urged the California Supreme Court to reject the “take-home” theory for asbestos liability. At issue in the case is whether employers whose employees may have been exposed to asbestos at the worksite–and therefore may have “taken home” asbestos–owe a duty to warn those who visit the homes of employees who may have been exposed. The coalition amicus brief explained that this would constitute a significant expansion of tort liability, potentially opening up a new wave of asbestos litigation that would overwhelm California’s already-burdened court system.

The U.S. Chamber filed this brief with the Coalition for Litigation Justice, Inc., National Association of Manufacturers, American Tort Reform Association, and National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center.

Mark A. Behrens and Patrick Gregory of Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. served as co-counsel for the amici with the U.S. Chamber in this case.