HOME STORY OF OUR FIRM SEARCH
ASBESTOS DRUGS POLLUTANTS ACCIDENTS MALPRACTICE
English En Français

FREE LEGAL REVIEW

First Name
Last Name
Home Phone
Work Phone
City and State
Email
Were you diagnosed with Asbestosis? Yes
Were you diagnosed with lung cancer? Yes
Were you diagnosed with Mesothelioma? yes
What is your date of diagnosis?
Additional Comments
Best time to call?

PSI Energy v. Roberts Mesothelioma Case: Analysis of Restatement (Second) of Torts

Read the Opinion in 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.

As noted above, a condition of liability under Section 343(b) of the Restatement (Second) of Torts is that the landowner “should expect that [the invitees] will not discover or realize the danger, or will fail to protect themselves against it.” (emphasis added).

Thus, a condition of liability is that PSI “should [have] expect[ed] that [Roberts] [would] not discover or realize the danger” or “should [have] expect[ed] that [Roberts] . . . [would] fail to protect [himself] against it.”

Roberts argues that the trial court properly denied the motion for judgment on the evidence because PSI had actual knowledge that Roberts was failing to protect himself from the dangers of the asbestos.

PSI’s corporate representative, Hank Hammond, testified that he frequently saw ACandS’s insulators performing work at the PSI plants in the 1960’s and 1970’s. He never saw the ACandS employees taking any precautions to protect themselves from breathing the asbestos insulation.

Hammond also recalled occasions where senior members of PSI’s management were present while contractors from ACandS did insulation work.

Consequently, the jury was presented with sufficient evidence to demonstrate that PSI should have expected that Roberts would fail to protect himself against the dangers.

Because PSI does not contest the trial court’s denial of the motion for judgment on the evidence based upon Section 343(a) or 343(c) of the Restatement, sufficient evidence was presented to establish liability under Section 343.

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

Mesothelioma Mesothelioma Home Page
head Mesothelioma: An Overview
kleio The Clock Is Ticking
asbestos Our Toughest Cases
head Diagnosis
treatment Symptoms, Stages, Treatment
kleio Latest News
New York Numbers
Asbestos
Real Stories


IN THIS SECTION
Liability premise in mesothelioma insulator case
Liability premise in mesothelioma defendant appeal
Liability premise in mesothelioma landowner appeal
Jury’s liability theories in mesothelioma appeal
Mesothelioma: The Facts
Link between asbestos exposure and mesothelioma
Work history of mesothelioma employee victim
Witness testimony in mesothelioma worker case
Roberts mesothelioma diagnosis in PSI appeal
Mesothelioma jury verdict in PSI Energy v. Roberts
Mesothelioma case analysis: PSI Energy v. Roberts
Liability reexamined in Indiana mesothelioma case
Restatement of Torts examined in mesothelioma case
Restatement of Torts section in mesothelioma case
Restatement of Torts in mesothelioma case
Analysis: Restatement of Torts, mesothelioma case
Watson v. Ziegart cited in mesothelioma appeal
Premises liability reexamined in mesothelioma case
Liability theory reexamined in mesothelioma case
Appeals Court affirms denial in mesothelioma case
Footnotes in Opinion of mesothelioma case
Notes in mesothelioma case PSI Energy v. Roberts
Conclusion of notes in mesothelioma case


RETURN BACK TO
Mesothelioma
Mesothelioma Resource Center
Mesothelioma
Information about Diagnosis
Latest News
Verdicts and Settlements

Mesothelioma Lawyer

Asbestos Lawyer

Mesothelioma Attorney

Asbestos Attorney

For legal help anywhere in the U.S. call:

1 - 800 - 476 - 6070

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

see also:

Notes in mesothelioma case PSI Energy v. Roberts Continuation of notes on plaintiff’s work history in mesothelioma case
Read more court notes on plaintiff’s work history in mesothelioma case

Footnotes in Opinion of mesothelioma case Footnotes on plaintiff’s work history in mesothelioma case opinion
Read plaintiff’s work history in mesothelioma case opinion.

Mesothelioma victim wins appeal Indiana Court affirms opinion for mesothelioma employee, Roberts
PSI Energy challenged court ruling for a mesothelioma victim, Roberts