Get Rid of The California State Rock; Pave the Way For Asbestos Lawsuits?

Apparently California has a state rock. I wasn’t aware of this, but have since learned that about half of the states in the country also have also designated official state rocks. California’s state rock happens to be serpentinite, which contains asbestos.

As you might have heard, prolonged exposure to asbestos dust can cause a rare and deadly form of lung cancer, called mesothelioma. However, asbestos was used for decades in construction, because it’s a very effective insulator, and is almost completely fireproof. Also, because asbestos occurs naturally in long, fibrous crystals, it can easily be incorporated into fabric, thereby becoming extremely fire-resistant. It was used to make fire blankets, and fire-resistant clothing for firefighters. It’s not seriously disputed that asbestos was quite useful for many purposes.

Because of the health risks that it poses, and the advent of safer alternatives, most developed countries, including the U.S., have banned the use of asbestos for most purposes. But the health effects of asbestos can take years, or decades, to manifest. Also, there are countless buildings, including homes, in the U.S. that were built well before these bans went into effect, so many people may still be at risk of future exposure.

So, despite the fact that asbestos has barely been used at all in the last several decades, lawsuits concerning its health effects are still being filed and litigated, and it is one of the most common single grounds for personal injury lawsuits.

Given all of this, you can imagine that asbestos has gotten an extremely bad name, to the point that many people aren’t even clear on what asbestos is – they just know that it will kill them.

Because of the bad name asbestos has gotten, some California lawmakers have proposed revoking serpentinite’s title as State Rock (also reported here). The move is supported by several Democratic legislatures, as well as groups dedicated to promoting awareness of the health effects of asbestos.

Many geologists, who presumably feel that serpentinite is simply an interesting rock, are opposed to the move. The second article linked above, appears in Reason Magazine, and claims that some of the organizations which are supporting this measure are sponsored by law firms which specialize in asbestos litigation. I should point out, however, that Reason Magazine has strong libertarian leanings, and definitely has an ideological axe to grind. This isn’t a reason to discount it entirely, but, like any other news source, it should be taken with a grain of salt.

However, they do raise some interesting points. They claim that removing this mineral’s title as state rock, as well as a legislative statement that it is a carcinogen will unnecessarily demonize a rock which contains small quantities of asbestos, if any, and is pretty harmless in the scheme of things.

Besides the fact that California lawmakers have more pressing matters to attend to, some observers are concerned that this action could open the floodgates for even more asbestos-related lawsuits, perhaps against science museums that have samples of serpentinite, and the owners of land that have naturally-occurring outcroppings of the mineral. Also, the rock is sometimes used in the manufacture of jewelry, and those companies could be vulnerable to lawsuits, as well.

While I believe that anyone sickened by asbestos during a time when its health risks were known to those in charge should be compensated, I find this action questionable. I’m not concerned that California will lose the prestige of having an official state rock, but with how cynical the motives of at least some of the backers of this measure appear to be.

I should make clear that it’s entirely possible that the motivations of this measure are altruistic. The supporters of this measure may well be concerned about the health effects of asbestos, and attempting to raise awareness of it – after all, if a rock poses a serious risk to human health, it doesn’t make sense to have it serve as an emblem of a state that purports to be very concerned for its citizens’ health.

I may sound like I’m picking on plaintiffs’ attorneys here, and I most definitely am not. While there are certainly some less-than-ethical personal injury attorneys out there, the other side of the coin, “tort reform” movement, doesn’t exactly come out smelling like roses, either. And this measure, whatever the motives, plays right into their hands.

Many comments on websites that have carried the story have already painted this as further proof that we need “tort reform” – which they usually don’t bother to define. However, it typically involves making it extremely difficult for plaintiffs, even with legitimate injuries caused by the negligence of defendants. While their arguments are often couched in perspectives about fairness, and about how businesses are often victims of runaway jury verdicts, and asbestos litigation, because it’s such a huge business (because a lot of people have been made ill by asbestos), is one of their favorite targets.

So, if this measure really is, as critics claim, a gift to plaintiffs’ attorneys, they’ve made a pretty serious miscalculation. It would simply give the tort reform movement more ammunition. And even if their motives are totally innocuous, it’s easy for someone who’s already predisposed to be suspicious of plaintiffs’ attorneys to be extremely skeptical.

In the end, I don’t think many people care whether or not California has a state rock. But when the reasons for getting rid of it can be so easily twisted to serve as evidence that some group’s agenda is correct, and now more needed than ever, legislators should think twice, and maybe let sleeping dogs (or asbestos-containing rocks) lie.