Patricia Price and Bobby Price, Her Husband, Plaintiffs Below, Appellants v. E.i. Dupont De Nemou — Berger, J…

Summary

The dissent would reverse the trial court because the alleged release of asbestos into the workplace constituted misfeasance, not nonfeasance, even though the injury to the employee's spouse occurred after contaminated clothing was taken home. It reasoned that the distinction between misfeasance and nonfeasance turns on whether the defendant's affirmative conduct created a new risk, while foreseeability determines whether a duty was owed. The dissent concluded that the pleaded facts sufficiently alleged foreseeable harm to Mrs. Price. No separate opinions were provided.