PSI ENERGY, INC. V. ROBERTS 829 N.E.2d 943 (2005) CASE BRIEF

PSI ENERGY, INC. V. ROBERTS

829 N.E.2d 943 (2005)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Roberts (P), the worker and his wife, sued PSI (D), electric utility and others, in the trial court for personal injury and loss of consortium on vicarious liability and premises liability theories. A jury found D 13 percent at fault in a general verdict without specifying under which theory. The Court of Appeals held that D could be held liable as a premises defendant, and affirmed the judgment. D appealed.

FACTS: P worked for Armstrong as an insulator. He started part-time in 1956, and retired from full-time employment in 1992, but continued to work part-time until 1997. D worked with insulation containing asbestos from the time he started until his employer stopped using it in the early 1980s. D routinely installed, handled, removed, and otherwise worked directly with insulation containing asbestos. P was often exposed to asbestos. P and others who worked with him often had no protective clothing, masks, or respirators. D's corporate representative testified that he frequently saw Armstrong insulators working with asbestos at D plants in the 1960s and 1970s, but never saw them take any precautions to protect themselves from breathing asbestos dust. The link between asbestos exposure and mesothelioma was established as early as the 1940s and 1950s. Armstrong was or should have been aware of asbestos-related health problems at least by the early 1960s. P was a member of the Local 18 of Heat and Frost Insulators International. Articles in the union's magazines urged asbestos workers to use safety equipment, and 'green sheets' included with the magazines from 1969 through 1976 discussed asbestos-related health problems. P did not learn the true dangers of asbestos until the 1980s. Armstrong did not supply masks for the employees until the 1970s. He asserted that sometime in the 1970s, he noticed that asbestos products were being phased out, but no one told him it was for safety reasons. P was diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma in 2001. P sued seeking damages from D and sixty other defendants, including both manufacturers of asbestos and other landowners. P asserted premises liability and exceptions to the general rule that a principal is not vicariously liable for the acts of its independent contractor. The jury returned a general verdict, finding compensatory damages of $2,800,000 for P, who died AFTER the trial began and $1,000,000 for Mrs. Roberts. The jury rejected claims for punitive damages. The jury allocated fault thirteen percent to D, twelve percent to P, and none to the other three remaining defendants. The remaining seventy-five percent was allocated to sixteen nonparties including thirty-six percent to Armstrong. The trial court then entered judgment against D for $364,000 to P and $130,000 to his wife. D appealed. The court held that D could be held liable as a premises defendant, and therefore affirmed the judgment based on a general judgment.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner