Union Carbide Corporation v. Paul Williams

Summary

The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and held that summary judgment was improper because disputed evidence about workplace asbestos exposure, fiber migration on clothing, and repeated household contact could support foreseeability and a duty of care. It also held that limiting the plaintiffs’ expert testimony without a finding of actual prejudice was an abuse of discretion, and that workers’ compensation exclusivity did not bar the claims because the alleged disease was attributed to non-occupational household exposure. The court emphasized that it was deciding only the propriety of summary judgment, not ultimate liability.