Brewing Company Faces Liability as Wisconsin Supreme Court Backs Family in Asbestos Case
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has ruled that Pabst Brewing Company may be held liable for asbestos exposure at its historic Milwaukee brewery, delivering a significant decision in a long-running legal battle involving workplace safety and corporate responsibility. The ruling represents a major development in litigation brought by the family of Gerald “Jerry” Lorbiecki, a steamfitter who died from mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos while working at the facility in the 1970s.
The case centers on Mr. Lorbiecki’s employment as a steamfitter for an independent contractor performing work at the brewery. Although he was not directly employed by Pabst, evidence presented during trial demonstrated that he was regularly exposed to asbestos-containing materials on-site. These materials were widely used at the time for insulation and other industrial purposes, despite growing awareness of their serious health risks. Mesothelioma, the disease that ultimately claimed Mr. Lorbiecki’s life, is a rare and aggressive cancer strongly linked to asbestos exposure.
A Milwaukee County jury initially found Pabst negligent under Wisconsin’s Safe Place Act, a law that requires employers and property owners to maintain safe premises for employees, frequenters, and visitors. The jury concluded that Pabst had failed to take reasonable steps to protect workers from hazardous asbestos exposure within its facility. As a result, the jury awarded the Lorbiecki family $26.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages, reflecting both the severity of the harm and the company’s conduct.
Pabst challenged the verdict, arguing that it should not be held responsible for the safety of workers employed by independent contractors. The company contended that its legal obligations did not extend to individuals who were not directly on its payroll, and therefore it could not be held liable under the Safe Place Act for Mr. Lorbiecki’s exposure. However, both the appellate court and, ultimately, the Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected this argument.
In its decision, the state’s highest court reaffirmed a broad interpretation of workplace safety obligations under Wisconsin law. The justices made clear that property owners cannot evade responsibility for unsafe conditions simply by outsourcing work to third-party contractors. Instead, the duty to maintain a safe environment extends to all individuals present on the premises, regardless of their employment status. This interpretation strengthens the Safe Place Act and reinforces longstanding legal principles aimed at protecting workers from preventable harm.
The court’s ruling underscores the idea that companies must take proactive measures to identify and mitigate hazards within their facilities, particularly when those hazards are well known. In this case, attorneys for the Lorbiecki family presented evidence suggesting that Pabst had been aware of the dangers associated with asbestos but failed to act decisively to address them. This included documentation of a 1986 citation issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which identified deteriorating asbestos in the brewery’s workers’ lunchroom. According to the plaintiffs, this evidence demonstrated that hazardous conditions persisted for years, exposing workers not only during active job duties but also during routine breaks.
Jonathan Holder, an attorney with Dean Omar Branham Shirley LLP representing the Lorbiecki family, emphasized the broader implications of the decision. He noted that both the jury and the appellate court had already recognized that Pabst was aware of the risks posed by asbestos exposure and failed to take appropriate action. The Supreme Court’s ruling, he said, reinforces the principle that companies cannot avoid accountability for unsafe conditions simply because the affected workers are employed by contractors rather than directly by the company itself.
Legal experts suggest that the decision could have far-reaching consequences for workplace safety litigation in Wisconsin and potentially beyond. By affirming that the Safe Place Act applies broadly to all individuals on a worksite, the ruling may influence how courts evaluate similar cases involving hazardous conditions and third-party contractors. Companies operating industrial facilities, in particular, may face increased scrutiny regarding their responsibility to ensure safe environments for everyone on their premises.
The case also highlights the long latency period associated with asbestos-related illnesses. Decades often pass between initial exposure and the onset of symptoms, making it challenging for victims and their families to seek justice. In Mr. Lorbiecki’s case, the exposure occurred in the 1970s, but the legal proceedings and ultimate resolution have unfolded many years later. This timeline underscores the enduring impact of workplace hazards and the importance of maintaining rigorous safety standards.
For the Lorbiecki family, the ruling represents both a legal victory and a measure of acknowledgment for their loss. While no court decision can reverse the effects of mesothelioma, the affirmation of liability provides a sense of accountability and closure after years of litigation. It also serves as a reminder of the human cost associated with industrial negligence and the critical role of legal systems in addressing such harms.
The underlying case, formally titled Carol Lorbiecki, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Gerald Lorbiecki vs. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, et al., was originally filed in the Milwaukee County Circuit Court. Over the course of several years, it has progressed through multiple levels of the judicial system, culminating in the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s definitive ruling.
Ultimately, the decision reinforces a clear message: workplace safety is a fundamental obligation that cannot be delegated away. Companies that control premises where hazardous conditions exist must take responsibility for protecting all individuals who enter those environments. As this case demonstrates, failure to do so can result in significant legal and financial consequences, as well as lasting harm to workers and their families.
Source Link:https://www.businesswire.com/
