Loretta Hoyt v. Lockheed Martin Corporation

MEMORANDUM

Appellant Loretta Hoyt claims that she developed cancer from her exposure to asbestos carried home, first by her father, and later by her husband, during the peri od from 1948 to 1958. Appellee Lockheed Martin is the successor-in-interest of the shipyard where Hoyt’s father and husband were allegedly exposed to asbestos during their employment. Hoyt sued Lockheed for negligence under Washington state law, and Lockheed moved for summary judgement, arguing that it did not owe Hoyt a duty of care, and even if it did, the harm was not foreseeable. The district court granted the motion, reasoning that while, in general, employers owe the family members of their employees a duty of care to prevent harm from take-home exposure to asbestos, Hoyt had not established a genuine issue of material fact that harm from such exposure was foreseeable to Lockheed during the relevant time period. We agree that Hoyt has failed to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding foreseeability, and we affirm.

Under Washington law, “[fjoreseeability is ... one of the elements of negligence.” Maltman v. Sauer, 84 Wash.2d 975 , 530 P.2d 254, 258 (1975) (en banc) (citation and internal…