N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT LORETTA HOYT, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. LOC KHEED M AR TIN C ORPOR ATION, individually

and a s suc c e ssor-in-inte re st to Puge t Sound B ridge and Dre dging C om pa ny and LOC KHEED SHIPB U ILDING C OM PANY, individually

and a s suc c e ssor-in-inte re st to Puge t Sound B ridge and Dre dging C om pa ny , De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-35573 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-01648-TSZ M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington Thom a s S. Zilly , Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm i tte d August 28, 2013 Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : HAW KINS, M c KEOW N, a nd C LIFTON, C irc uit Judge s . 

# FIL ED SEP 10 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.Appe lla nt Lore tta Hoyt c la im s tha t she de ve lope d c anc e r from he r e xposure to a s be stos c a

rrie d hom e , first by

he r fa the r, and la

t e r by he r husba

nd, during the pe riod from

1948 to 1958. Appe lle e Loc khe e d M artin is thesuc c e ssor-in-inte re st of the shipy ard whe re Hoyt’ s fathe r and husba n d we re a l le ge dly e xpose d to a sbe stos during the ir e m

ploy m e nt. Hoy

t sue d Loc khe e d for ne g lige nc e unde r W a shington sta

te la w, a nd Loc khe e d m ove d for sum m ary judge m e nt, a

rguing tha

t it did not owe H o y t a

duty of c are , a nd e ve n if it did, the

ha rm wa s not fore se e a

ble . The distric t c ourt gra

nte d the m otion, re a soning tha t while , in ge ne ra l , e m

ploy e rs owe the fam i l y

m e m be rs of the ir e m

p loy e e s a duty of c are to pre v e nt ha

rm from take -hom e e xposure to a s be stos, Hoy t ha d not e sta

blishe d a ge n uine issue of m a te ria l fa c t tha

t ha rm from suc h e xposure wa s fore se e a ble to Loc k

he e d during the re le va nt tim e pe riod. W e a gre e tha t Hoy t ha s fa i le d to c re a te a

ge n u ine issue of m a te ria l fa c t re ga

rding fore se e a

bility , a nd we a ffirm . Unde r W a shington la

w , “ [f] ore se e a

bility is . . . oneof the e l e m e nts of ne glige nc e .” Maltman v . Saue r , 530 P.2d 254, 258 (W a sh. 1975) (e n ba nc ) (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). In orde r for the pla intiff to pre va il, a fa c tfinde r m

ust de te rm ine tha

t the ha rm she suffe re d wa s within a “ fore se e a ble range of da

nge r.” Simone t ta v . Viad C orp. , 197 P.3d 127, 131 n.4 (Wa sh. 2008).

2On this re c ord, no re a sona ble fa c t finde r c ould c o nc lude tha t ha rm from ta ke hom e e xposure to a sbe stos should ha ve be e n fore se e a

ble to Loc khe e d by

1958. Hoyt’ s own sc ie n t ific e xpe rt, Dr. B arry C a ste lm an, sta

te d tha t “ [s] tudie s on the oc c urre nc e of a sbe stos dise a se that inc lude d fam ily m e m be rs of a sbe stos-e xpose d worke rs we re not publishe d until the 1960s.” Hoyt a

rgue s tha t e v e n if no sc ie ntific study de ta iling therisk from

ta ke -hom e e xposure to a sbe stos ha d be e n publishe d by the tim e of he r e xp osure , se ve ra l othe r pie c e s of e v ide nc e sugge st tha t Loc khe e d should ha ve known of therisk. She offe rs tha t fe de ra l re g ulations re quire d e m ploy e rs to providese p a

ra te fa c ilitie s a

nd loc k e rs to e m

ploy e e s e xpose d to a sbe stos to pre ve n t the c onta m ination of the ir hom e s. The se la ws a i m to limit e xposure to “ c onta

m ina nts haz ardous to [the ] he a lth” of “ worke rs,” not the ir fa m ilie s . Sim i la

rly , she c ite s sta

te sa fe ty sta nda rds tha t re q uire d e m ploy e e s c ha

nge c lothe s a n d showe r a fte r be ing e xpose d to haz a rdous m a te ria ls, inc luding a sbe stos. B ut the se sta

nda rds foc us on sa fe gua

rding the he a lth of theworke r. Furthe r, Hoyt points to m

inute s from

the 1945 Pa c ific Shipy a

rd Sa fe ty C onfe re nc e , whic h c onc e rne d “ oc c upationa l ha z ards,” and pre c a utions sim

ila r to those m andate d by the re gula tions a nd sa fe ty sta

nda rds ta ke n by othe r c om

pa nie s, but the re is no e vide nc e tha

t Loc k he e d kne w or should ha

v e known of the s e pre c a

utions or the ba sis for the m . Hoyt ha s not produc e d e vide nc e suffic ie n t to pe rm it a re a sona ble 3jury

to c onc lude that Loc khe e d should ha v e fore se e n ha

rm from take -hom e e xposure to a sbe stos by

1958. Hoyt a rgue s tha t e ve n if Loc khe e d c ould not ha ve fore se e n tha

t she would be ha rm e d by take -hom e e xposure to a sbe s tos, the ha rm she suffe re d wa s within a fore se e a ble “ ge ne ra l fie ld of da

nge r.” Unde r W a shington la w, it is e nough tha

t the

“ risk from

whic h [the ha

rm ] re sults wa s known or in the e xe rc ise of re a s ona ble c are should ha

ve be e n known” e ve n if the pa rtic ula r harm wa s unknown. Trav is v . Bohannon , 115 P.3d 342, 346 (W a sh. C t. App. 2005); se e also Mc Le od v . Grant C ty . Sc h. Dist. 128 , 255 P.2d 360, 363 (W a sh. 1953) (e n ba nc ); Be r glund v . Spok aneC o. , 103 P.2d 355, 361 (W a sh. 1940). Hoy t urge s tha

t be c a use c om pa nie s kne w tha t e xposure to a sbe stos wa s ha rm ful to the ir e m

p loy e e s, a nd be c a use the y kne w tha t ta k e -hom e e xposure to som e ha z ardous m a te ria ls c ould be ha rm ful to fa m ily m e m be rs of the ir e m

ploy e e s, ha

rm to fa m ily m e m be rs from ta ke -hom e e xposure to a sbe stos wa s within a fore se e a b le “ ge ne ra l fie ld of da

nge r.” Howe ve r, W a shington c ourts a sse ss fore se e a bility ba se d on the risk pose d by the pa rtic ula r ha z ardous m a te ria l in que stion to the c la s s of pe ople in the pla i ntiff’ s position, not to the risks pose d by

a ll ha z ardous m a te ria ls to a ll pe ople . S e e Loc k w o od v . AC& S, Inc . , 744 P.2d 605, 615-616 (Wa sh. 1987) (e n ba nc ) (in ne glige nc e a c tion a ga inst shipy ard owne r, e v i de nc e tha t fa c tory owne rs kne wof the risks of a sbe stos to the i r 4e m

ploy e e s wa s re le v ant, but theque stion for tria l wa s whe the r the e vide n c e prove d that shipy ard owne rs should ha v e known of therisks of a sbe stos to the ir e m ploy e e s). B e c a use Loc khe e d is e ntitle d

to sum m ary judgm e nt on the ba sis of fore se e a bility , we do not re a c h the issue of whe the r W a shington la wre c ogniz e s a duty of c are to pre ve n t

ha rm from ta k e -hom e e xposure to a s be stos. AFFIRM E D.

5