Arizona Supreme Court addresses duty

In a highly-anticipated decision, Quiroz v. Alcoa, the Arizona Supreme Court held that an employer had no duty to protect the public from off-site contact with employees who may have been carrying asbestos fibers on their work clothes.  In a detailed analysis of Arizona’s duty framework, the Court determined there was no common-law special relationship requiring an employer to protect the public from secondary asbestos exposure and no public policy giving rise to such duty.  The Court rejected the Third Restatement approach to duty and affirmed:

1. Duty is not presumed.  In every negligence case a plaintiff must prove that a duty exists.
2. Foreseeability is not a factor in determining duty and cannot be used to expand an alleged tortfeasor’s duty.
3. Arizona bases duty solely on whether a special relationships exist under the common law or are statutorily-created.
4. State and federal statutes are the primary sources for identifying whether public policy creates a duty.

View Outside Article Source