Skip to main content

Lagueux v. Union Carbide Corp.

Fla. Dist. Ct. App.November 26, 2003No. 4D03-383Cited 4 times
Plaintiff WinUnion Carbide Corporation$1,620,000 awarded
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Gross
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

Plaintiff prevailed at trial against Union Carbide for asbestos-related negligence and strict liability. On appeal, the court reversed the jury's apportionment that included non-parties and remanded with judgment for plaintiff in the amount of $1,620,000 after applying a 10% set-off for Georgia-Pacific's fault.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** A worker sued Union Carbide Corporation after developing an asbestos-related illness. The employee claimed the company was negligent and should be held strictly liable for his exposure to dangerous asbestos materials while working. The case went to trial, where a jury had to decide how much different companies were responsible for the worker's illness. **What the Court Decided** The worker won his case. Initially, a jury awarded damages but divided responsibility among several companies, including some that weren't part of the lawsuit. An appeals court said this wasn't allowed and changed the decision. The court awarded the worker $1,620,000 in damages from Union Carbide, after reducing the amount by 10% to account for another company's (Georgia-Pacific's) share of responsibility. **Why This Matters for Workers** This case shows that workers can successfully hold employers accountable for exposing them to dangerous materials like asbestos. Even when multiple companies may share blame, workers can still recover significant compensation for work-related illnesses. The ruling reinforces that employers have a legal duty to protect workers from hazardous substances and will face financial consequences when they fail to do so.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.