Washington’s highest court upheld a jury verdict against ExxonMobil Oil Co. that the company should be held accountable for exposing a contractor to asbestos that caused his mesothelioma and death. The jury originally found for $4 million in favor of the plaintiff, which was later reduced to $2.2 million after settlements with other defendants.
The Supreme Court’s ruling concluded that the trial judge acted in his judgment when he declined to give ExxonMobil a jury instruction on “known or obvious dangers.” The majority wrote that the record failed to show conclusively that the decedent, Warren Wright, fully knew about asbestos exposure despite taking some precautions.
Legal Interpretation and Jury Instructions
According to ExxonMobil, the jury should have been told in the premises liability instruction if Wright was aware of the asbestos hazards. Yet justices discerned no legal need to combine these instructions and held that Wright’s measures of care were not a demonstration of knowledge of the severity of harm.
The case had already been upheld by a state appeals court in December 2021, which found the premises liability warning to have been properly delivered and that ExxonMobil had enough time to defend itself. But the appeals court had stayed the final judgment to review the fairness of the settlements with other defendants, not fully disclosed to ExxonMobil.
Dissenting Opinions on Risk Awareness
Dissenting Justice Barbara A Madsen said the jury ought to have been told about the known or obvious risks and that this absence did not help ExxonMobil advance its case that Wright had taken on the risks of his job. This dissent was also filed by Justice Gordon McCloud, who noted that Wright, an “attention to safety” type, ought to have been awarded the lesson given the precautions he used when working with asbestos.
