Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 18,400+ case briefs...

Satterfield v. Breeding Insulation Co.

Tennessee Supreme Court
266 S.W.3d 347 (2008)


From 1973 to 1975, and again from 1978 to 1984, Doug Satterfield (plaintiff) was employed at an aluminum-manufacturing plant operated by Alcoa, Inc. (defendant). Satterfield’s duties at Alcoa brought him into daily contact with asbestos dust and fibers. Since the 1960s, Alcoa was aware that asbestos posed health dangers not only to employees, but also to the families of employees who were exposed to asbestos through the work clothing that employees wore home. In 1972, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued guidelines restricting employees with asbestos exposure from laundering their work clothes at home. Despite OSHA’s regulations and Alcoa’s knowledge that work clothes spread asbestos to family members, Alcoa did not educate Satterfield regarding the risks of asbestos. Alcoa did not provide protective coveralls, did not launder its employees’ clothing, and discouraged its employees from using on-site bathing facilities. Satterfield’s adult daughter, Amanda, developed mesothelioma, allegedly from her exposure to asbestos borne home on her father’s clothing. Amanda sued Alcoa for negligently failing to take reasonable care to protect her from the foreseeable risk of harm she faced from Satterfield’s asbestos exposure. Amanda died at age 25, shortly after filing suit. As the personal representative of Amanda’s estate, Satterfield stepped into his daughter’s shoes as plaintiff. Alcoa argued that it did not owe a duty of care to Amanda, because it had no special relationship with her and was under no affirmative obligations to act. Alcoa moved to dismiss Satterfield’s complaint, and the trial court granted Alcoa’s motion. The appellate court reversed and remanded the case. Alcoa applied to take an interlocutory appeal, which the supreme court granted.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Koch, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 497,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 497,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 18,400 briefs, keyed to 985 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial