Gerald Lorbiecki worked as a steamfitter for an independent contractor at Pabst's Milwaukee brewery in the mid-1970s, where he removed and replaced asbestos-insulated pipes. During this work, he and other steamfitters chipped insulation off existing pipes using hammers, chisels, and other tools, causing asbestos-containing dust to become airborne. Lorbiecki was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2017 and died before trial, with his estate continuing the litigation.
The court held that the general rule shielding property owners from liability to independent contractors' employees does not apply to claims under the safe-place statute. Justice Rebecca Frank Dallet wrote that the statute supersedes the common-law duty of reasonable care discussed in Tatera v. FMC Corporation, meaning Pabst could not rely on that precedent to avoid liability.
The court found that Pabst retained sufficient control over the work premises to trigger liability. Justice Dallet noted that Pabst's internal memoranda required contractors to notify the company before making welds or cuts so that necessary precautions were taken, and mandated daily inspections of work areas. This evidence allowed a jury to infer that Pabst retained the right to dictate whether cuts or welds would take place, where and when they would happen.
Pabst had argued it could not be liable because it did not control Lorbiecki's work and because undisturbed asbestos does not create an unsafe condition. The court rejected both arguments, finding that liability under the safe-place statute requires either control over the contractor's work or failure to turn over complete control and custody of a safe place to the contractor. Justice Dallet wrote that the evidence showed Pabst knew that many miles of pipes in its facility contained asbestos and that steamfitters would have to remove thousands of pounds of insulation using methods that caused dust to fly around.
The jury found Pabst 22% liable for Lorbiecki's injuries, awarding $2.3 million in compensatory damages and $20 million in punitive damages against the company. The court upheld the punitive damages award, finding sufficient evidence that Pabst acted with intentional disregard of workers' rights.
However, the court reversed the court of appeals on the calculation of the punitive damages cap. It held that the cap should be based only on the $2.3 million in compensatory damages recoverable against Pabst as the sole remaining defendant, not the total $5.5 million awarded by the jury against all alleged tortfeasors.
Justice Annette Ziegler, joined by Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley, dissented sharply, arguing that summary judgment should have been granted to Pabst. Justice Ziegler criticized the majority for shortcutting review of the record at summary judgment and warned that the decision has now effectuated a sea change in summary judgment review and at the same time has imparted a strict liability standard for building owners.