Utah Supreme Court

Do premises operators owe a duty for take-home asbestos exposure? Boynton v. Kennecott Explained

2021 UT 67
No. 20190259
November 18, 2021
Affirmed in part and Reversed in part

Summary

Larry Boynton worked at various job sites during the 1960s-1970s where he was exposed to asbestos, which he allegedly carried home on his clothing, exposing his wife Barbara to asbestos dust that caused her mesothelioma and death. Larry sued the premises operators (Kennecott, PacifiCorp, and Conoco) for strict premises liability and negligence. The district court granted summary judgment to PacifiCorp and Conoco, finding they owed no duty to Barbara, but denied Kennecott’s motion.

Analysis

The Utah Supreme Court in Boynton v. Kennecott addressed a significant issue in asbestos litigation: whether premises operators owe a duty of care to workers’ co-habitants for “take-home exposure” to asbestos dust. This case establishes important precedent for premises liability in toxic exposure cases.

Background and Facts

Larry Boynton worked at multiple job sites during the 1960s and 1970s where he was exposed to asbestos. He allegedly carried asbestos dust home on his work clothes, exposing his wife Barbara through laundering activities. Barbara developed mesothelioma and died in 2016. Larry sued premises operators Kennecott, PacifiCorp, and Conoco, claiming they owed Barbara a duty to prevent take-home asbestos exposure. The district court granted summary judgment to PacifiCorp and Conoco but denied Kennecott’s motion.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issue was whether premises operators owe a duty of care to workers’ co-habitants for take-home asbestos exposure. For PacifiCorp, the court also analyzed whether the retained control doctrine applied based on contractual provisions requiring use of asbestos materials and specifying work methods.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

Applying Utah’s five-factor duty analysis, the court found premises operators owe a duty when they engage in affirmative acts causing workers to contact asbestos. The court determined such exposure was foreseeable as early as 1961, based on historical scientific evidence and common sense that dust travels on clothing. Premises operators were better positioned to prevent harm through workplace policies. Regarding PacifiCorp, contractual provisions requiring asbestos use and specifying work methods created genuine issues of fact about retained control.

Practice Implications

This decision expands premises liability for toxic exposure cases in Utah. Practitioners must carefully analyze whether defendants engaged in affirmative acts versus mere omissions when establishing duty. The foreseeability factor may be established through historical scientific evidence and common knowledge about dust transmission. For retained control claims, specific contractual provisions about materials and work methods may create liability even without direct supervision.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

Case Details

Case Name

Boynton v. Kennecott

Citation

2021 UT 67

Court

Utah Supreme Court

Case Number

No. 20190259

Date Decided

November 18, 2021

Outcome

Affirmed in part and Reversed in part

Holding

Premises operators owe a duty of care to workers’ co-habitants for take-home asbestos exposure when they engage in affirmative acts causing workers to contact asbestos, creating a foreseeable risk of harm to co-habitants.

Standard of Review

Correctness for grants and denials of summary judgment on interlocutory appeal

Practice Tip

When asserting take-home exposure claims, focus on demonstrating that defendants engaged in affirmative acts (not mere omissions) that caused asbestos exposure, as this is critical to establishing duty under Utah’s five-factor analysis.

Need Appellate Counsel?

Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Related Court Opinions

    • Utah Court of Appeals

    State v. Sisneros

    April 9, 2020

    The State was barred from prosecuting aggravated robbery in a separate district court when the defendant had already been convicted of theft by receiving arising from the same criminal episode under Utah Code section 76-1-403.
    • Criminal Appeals
    • |
    • Double Jeopardy
    • |
    • Jurisdiction
    • |
    • Statutory Interpretation
    Read More
    • Utah Court of Appeals

    State v. Jamieson

    January 7, 2021

    A restitution order may not include amounts for time spent by crime victims attending to criminal proceedings, and trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge unsupported claims of time spent by the victim.
    • Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
    • |
    • Preservation of Error
    • |
    • Standard of Review
    Read More
About these Decision Summaries

Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.