PSI Energy v. Roberts: Mesothelioma Case Analysis

Read the analysis of the case PSI Energy v. Roberts, in which the Restatement of Torts (Second) is discussed. Roberts, an insulator by trade, was exposed to asbestos in his workplace, and was ultimately diagnosed with mesothelioma.

Because we must read Section 343 together with Section 343A, we will also address PSI’s contention that it had the right to expect that Roberts, as a professional asbestos worker, would realize the danger of PSI’s asbestos work.

As noted above, Section 343A provides that: “A possessor of land is not liable to his invitees for physical harm caused to them by an activity or condition on the land whose danger is known or obvious to them, unless the possessor should anticipate the harm despite such knowledge or obviousness.”

Comment b to Section 343A provides that:

[t]he word “known” denotes not only knowledge of the existence of the condition or activity itself, but also appreciation of the danger it involves. Thus the condition or activity must not only be known to exist, but it must also be recognized that it is dangerous, and the probability and gravity of the threatened harm must be appreciated. “Obvious” means that both the condition and the risk are apparent to and would be recognized by a reasonable man, in the position of the visitor, exercising ordinary perception, intelligence, and judgment.

We conclude that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that: (1) the danger was not known or obvious to Roberts; and (2) PSI should have anticipated the harm.

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