PSI Energy v. Roberts Mesothelioma Case: Restatement of Torts Section 343

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

PSI focuses its argument upon Section 343(b) above. PSI does not contest the trial court’s denial of the motion for judgment on the evidence based upon its lack of knowledge of the danger of asbestos or its failure to exercise reasonable care to protect Roberts.

Rather, PSI contends that the trial court should have granted its motion for judgment on the evidence because there was no evidence that PSI should have expected that Roberts would not discover or realize the danger, or would fail to protect himself against it.

PSI argues that it had the right to expect that ACandS’s “professional asbestos workers would be cognizant of the hazards of asbestos exposure they routinely encountered on a daily basis in the course of their occupation, and that they would take whatever precautions they deemed appropriate to protect themselves.”

Appellant’s Brief at 60. PSI points out that Roberts was an experienced, professional asbestos worker who recognized asbestos when he saw it. PSI contends that it “rightfully expected” that ACandS would warn its employees of the hazards of asbestos and Roberts would be familiar with such hazards.

Further, PSI argues that there is no evidence that PSI had superior knowledge to ACandS of the dangers of asbestos.

In response, Roberts argues that PSI had actual knowledge that Roberts and the other insulators were not protecting themselves. Further, Roberts contends that ACandS’s knowledge regarding the danger of asbestos cannot be imputed to Roberts.

Moreover, even if ACandS’s knowledge could be imputed, Roberts argues that “PSI would still be liable if the evidence supports an inference that PSI could have and should have anticipated that the dangerous condition (air contaminated with airborne asbestos fibers) would cause physical harm to Roberts notwithstanding its known or obvious danger.” Appellee’s Brief at 34.

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