It is becoming almost impossible to avoid being exposed to multiple different chemicals on a daily basis. Companies use them to make their environments look and smell cleaner, to keep pests away, and to save time in industrial applications such as manufacturing.
Anyone can be harmed by toxic or irritating chemicals present in a variety of forms, from gas, vapor, and aerosols to liquid solutions and particulate solids. If you’ve been injured due to exposure to toxic chemicals, you may be entitled to compensation to cover medical needs and offset the suffering caused by the damage to your body. However, the legal pathway to establishing liability is not always clear in toxic exposure cases. Sometimes, the theory of strict liability applies, but in other cases, you may need to prove negligence or seek recovery under other legal theories.
An attorney experienced in handling legal liability in toxic tort cases can review the circumstances of your case and advise you about the compensation you may be entitled to and what will be necessary to prove to recover. As you get started, you may find it helpful to have an overview of toxic chemical liability and situations where companies can be held strictly liable for the harm caused by dangerous substances.
What is Strict Liability?
Strict liability refers to a situation where a person or company is held liable for the consequences of an action regardless of whether they were proven to be at fault in some way. For example, Florida has a strict liability rule when it comes to dog bite cases. When a dog bites someone, the owner is held liable for the injuries even if they didn’t know the dog might turn violent, regardless of whether they were negligent in keeping the dog restrained. The mere fact that they owned a dog that bit someone creates liability for the dog bite.
When strict liability applies to a case, the person injured or harmed does not need to prove that someone acted negligently or did something wrong. That makes it much easier to establish liability.
Strict liability often applies to situations that involve inherently dangerous possessions or ultrahazardous activities. It requires companies who put others at an extraordinary risk to exercise extra caution. Examples of situations where courts have imposed strict liability for harm caused by an ultrahazardous or abnormally dangerous activity include:
- Fumigating a building with dangerous pest control chemicals
- Manufacturing that emits noxious fumes into a populated area
- Dusting fields with pesticides from the air
- Storage and transportation of toxic chemicals
In addition, manufacturers and sellers can be held strictly liable for harm caused by products that are defective in design, manufacturing, or marketing. Some cases involving toxic chemical injuries involve liability under this theory.
If your attorney can prove that strict liability applies in your case, your burden of proof is easier to meet, and you have a greater likelihood of winning your case and recovering damages.
Chemical Exposure Cases May Fall Under State or Federal Law
One factor that complicates cases involving damage caused by exposure to toxic chemicals is that different laws may apply to the situation, depending on the source of the toxic chemical. Florida has enacted a number of environmental laws governing toxic chemicals, and these may give rise to a personal liability claim. For instance, Florida’s Water Quality Assurance Act of 1983 establishes liability for the discharge of hazardous substances into surface and ground waters in the state. The Florida Supreme Court held that the Water Quality Assurance Act allows someone injured by battery acid spilled on the highway to seek recovery for personal injuries under this statute. Notably, the statute says that it is not necessary to prove negligence in order to recover damages. In other words, it provides for strict liability claims.
Federal laws, such as The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), generally do not provide personal injury remedies, but sometimes, cases brought under these laws are combined with cases brought under state law.
Different Theories of Liability for Harm Caused by Toxic Chemicals
In addition to claims brought under specific statutes, those who have been injured due to toxic chemicals may be able to base liability claims on common law legal theories.
Negligence
In a negligence claim, the person injured needs to prove:
- That the defendant (the person they are suing) owed a duty to them to behave responsibly,
- That the defendant failed to live up to that duty, and
- That the failure (irresponsible behavior) caused specific harm.
They also need to demonstrate proof of the harm suffered.
Strict Liability
When it can be shown that an activity is accepted as being inherently dangerous, then harm resulting from that activity is automatically the responsibility of the person engaging in that dangerous activity.
Property Laws
It may be possible to recover damages under the theory of nuisance by showing that the handling of toxic chemicals interfered with your right to quiet enjoyment of your property. Alternatively, you might be able to assert that toxic substances intruded onto your property as a trespass violation.
Strict Liability for Defective Products
A product liability claim is a lawsuit seeking damages due to harm caused by a product that was defective due to faults in design, construction, manufacture, installation, or labeling and marketing. Injuries involving toxic chemicals could lead to product liability claims if the issue that caused the injury was related to a problem with one of these stages during the product’s creation. For example, injuries caused by a cleaning product that caused chemical burns or produced toxic fumes could have resulted from:
- Mixing an incorrect ratio of chemicals in the factory
- Using a component that did not match the specifications
- Storing a mixture inadequately so that it became contaminated
- Development of a product that was inherently flawed because it was too dangerous for use by consumers
- Failure to warn about fumes or burn risks
- Improper instructions regarding storage and use of the product
- Marketing materials showing the product being used in an unsafe manner
So, when does strict liability apply in a defective product case? Essentially, when the legal team of the person injured can prove that a product was legally defective or that it created an unreasonably dangerous condition that caused injuries, then the producer or seller can be held strictly liable for those injuries.
Under Section 768.1256 of Florida Statutes, there is a presumption that a product is defective or unreasonably dangerous” if the manufacturer or seller failed to comply with state or federal laws setting standards for the safe manufacture of the product.
When Harm is Caused by Negligence
Even if strict liability does not apply to a situation where someone is harmed by toxic chemicals, they can recover damages under other theories such as negligence. A chemical or compound might not have been inherently dangerous, but if it was stored or applied negligently, and that negligence caused injuries, then the person or company responsible for negligent use could be held liable for resulting harm, including pain and suffering.
The owner or manager of a property could be held legally responsible under the theory of premises liability. When a business invites people onto the premises for the benefit of the business, such as when a store puts an “open” sign in the window inviting customers to shop or a hotel posts a vacancy sign inviting potential guests to register, then that business is legally obligated to provide a reasonably safe environment. If that environment is full of toxic fumes from work refinishing the floors or caustic disinfectant cleaner drips onto a patron while they’re using the restroom, then the property owner has failed to provide safe premises, and they can be held liable for injuries that result.
Evidence Is Critical to Prove Liability
In a negligence case, it is vital to collect and preserve evidence as soon as possible after the injuries to be able to demonstrate how the defendant acted irresponsibly and how that lack of responsibility caused injuries. When strict liability applies to a case, it is not necessary to prove irresponsible behavior, but it is still essential to present evidence proving that the dangerous activity or defective product caused your injuries. This can be a complex task, and insurance companies and corporate attorneys for the defendant will be combing through the case files, looking for any weakness in the chain of reasoning. For that reason, it is important to work with an experienced legal team who knows how to build a solid case for liability for harm caused by toxic chemicals.
[View source.]
