{"id":13442,"date":"2018-07-27T19:07:14","date_gmt":"2018-07-27T19:07:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.mesotheliomahope.com\/?p=13442"},"modified":"2023-12-21T11:54:39","modified_gmt":"2023-12-21T16:54:39","slug":"delaware-upholds-rights-spouses","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.mesotheliomahope.com\/blog\/delaware-upholds-rights-spouses\/","title":{"rendered":"Delaware Sets New Precedent for Spouses With Secondary Asbestos Exposure"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Delaware Supreme Court ruled in favor of a spouse claiming her fatal lung cancer<\/a> was derived from toxic secondary asbestos exposure.<\/p>\n

Dorothy Ramsey\u00a0sued 2 manufacturing companies that supplied asbestos-based products following her diagnosis, claiming they were negligent in protecting her and her husband from dangerous levels of asbestos.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Secondary\u00a0Asbestos Exposure \u201cTake Home\u201d Case<\/h2>\n

From 1967 to 1992, Dorothy Ramsey\u2019s husband, Robert Ramsey, worked as a maintenance worker at Haveg Industries Inc. For 25 years, Robert was exposed to deadly asbestos through handling products supplied by the Georgia Southern University Advanced Development Center, or \u201cHerty\u201d in this case, and Hollingsworth and Vose Company.<\/p>\n

After developing lung cancer, Dorothy took the manufacturers to court, alleging she developed her terminal illness from secondary asbestos exposure due to handling and laundering Mr. Ramsey\u2019s work clothing.<\/p>\n

Initial Case Ruling<\/h3>\n

At first, the trial court sided with the defendants, exonerating them from liability and ruling that the manufacturers<\/a> had no obligation to warn spouses of the dangers of asbestos exposure. Mrs. Ramsey died of her lung cancer in 2015.<\/p>\n

Since her passing, lawyers for the estate appealed the verdict, arguing that the employers had a duty to warn employees of the dangers of laundering contaminated clothing off-site. The Delaware Supreme Court reversed the initial decision after reviewing the appeal, claiming Mrs. Ramsey did, in fact, have a viable claim against the manufacturers.<\/p>\n

A New Precedent in “Take Home” Cases<\/h2>\n

By reversing the decision, the court supported the plaintiff\u2019s claim that the manufacturing companies failed to warn her of the dangers she faced while handling her husband\u2019s asbestos-laden clothing for so many years.<\/p>\n

This ruling effectively sets a new precedent in case law, which previously laid out that employers have no duty to spouses\u2014only to the employees themselves.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The reversal is good news for those filing future secondary asbestos exposure cases. While plaintiffs in similar cases may not have had courts on their side, the most recent ruling sets a positive precedent moving forward for similar claims.<\/p>\n

Victims of mesothelioma, lung cancer or other illnesses of long-term asbestos exposure may just have more luck seeking justice for wrongdoing in asbestos-related cases.<\/p>\n

What Is Secondary Asbestos Exposure?<\/h2>\n

Secondary asbestos exposure\u2014also referred to as \u201cdomestic\u201d or \u201ctake home\u201d exposure\u2014refers to the exposure received by women, children and siblings who shared homes with men working closely with asbestos. It occurs when coming into close contact with asbestos fibers brought into the home such as through hair or clothing.<\/p>\n

Mrs. Ramsey isn\u2019t the first woman to claim her fatal cancer was a result of her secondary exposure to asbestos. In fact, a large number of 30 to 40 year old women\u2014about 8% annually\u2014are diagnosed with mesothelioma.<\/p>\n

According to a 1997 study conducted by Durham and Duke University Medical Centers involving women with mesothelioma<\/a>, more than half of those diagnosed were exposed through household contact with individuals who worked with asbestos.<\/p>\n

There are several scenarios in which secondary exposure may have occurred, including:<\/strong><\/p>\n