Simpkins v. CSX Transp., Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that a “direct relationship” between parties “is not an additional requirement to establishing a duty”
• asserting that the majority's remand order is pointless because “it is generally accepted that the first medical studies of bystander exposure were not published until 1965”
• remarking that foreseeability is \an integral factor to the existence of duty\
• setting out elements for negligence and four factors to determine whether a duty ran from the defendant to the plaintiff
• reversing dismissal of complaint and permitting leave to amend to state facts regarding negligent failure to warn of risks of household exposure to asbestos transported home from railroad worker’s jobsite
• enumerating several factors courts use to determine whether a duty of care existed

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).