PSI Energy v. Roberts Mesothelioma Case: Applicability of Watson v. Ziegert

Read analysis of the Opinion in PSI Energy v. Roberts, in which Watson v. Ziegart is discussed. Roberts, an insulator by trade, was exposed to asbestos in his workplace, and was ultimately diagnosed with mesothelioma.

In arguing that it had the right to expect that ACandS would warn its employees of the hazards of asbestos and Roberts would realize the danger, PSI relies, in part, upon our holdings in Watson v. Ziegert, 616 N.E.2d 785 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993), and Merrill, 771 N.E.2d at 1264-66.

In Watson, the contractor, Watson, went to Ziegert’s home to dismantle a television tower that was forty feet tall. Id. at 785. Watson noticed that the tower was old and rusted. Id. at 786. While Watson was dismantling the tower, the tower fell onto a neighbor’s roof, causing Watson to sustain serious injuries. Id.

Watson and Ziegert disagreed as to whether Ziegert told Watson that the tower was old and rusted. Id.

In reviewing the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Ziegert, we analyzed the situation under Sections 343 and 343A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. Id. 787. We held that Ziegert did not need to warn Watson because Ziegert “couldn’t tell Watson anything he did not know.” Id. at 787.

Watson was invited onto Ziegert’s property for the purpose of dismantling the tower. Id. The age and rust were “easily observable” and, thus, were conditions that Ziegert rightfully expected would be noticed by Watson. Id. at 788.

Furthermore, we also held that “Ziegert rightfully expected Watson, an experienced person at dismantling towers, would take the proper precautions to guard against any additional hazards resulting from the easily observable conditions.” Id.

Watson is distinguishable from this case because the danger in Watson, i.e., the tower’s age and rust, was easily observable. Here, although the asbestos was easily observable, the danger was not so obvious.

The jury was presented with conflicting evidence as to whether Roberts, as an experienced insulator, would have been aware of the dangers. Although evidence was presented indicating that Roberts received union newsletters in the 1960’s and 1970’s describing the dangers of asbestos, Roberts testified that he was not aware of the dangers of asbestos until the 1980’s.

The jury also heard conflicting evidence as to PSI’s knowledge of the dangers of asbestos. PSI does not argue that Roberts’s knowledge of the dangers of asbestos was superior to PSI’s knowledge.

Because the jury heard conflicting evidence as to Roberts’s and PSI’s comparative knowledge of the dangers of asbestos, it was for the jury to interpret the conflicting evidence. Cf. Ozinga Transp. Sys., Inc. v. Michigan Ash Sales, Inc., 676 N.E.2d 379, 386 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (holding that “NIPSCO’s comparative knowledge was no greater than that of Schroeder and NIPSCO could not have informed Schroeder of any facts of which he was not already aware”), reh’g denied, trans. denied.

Courtesy of the Indiana Court of Appeals and the State of Indiana

Other helpful links:

Asbestos Asbestos
Asbestos and lung cancer Asbestos and lung cancer
Mesothelioma attorney Mesothelioma attorney
Mesothelioma Lawyer Mesothelioma lawyer
Asbestos attorney Asbestos attorney