A U.S. District Court ruled that a utility pole worker employed by Verizon (NYSE:VZ) failed to show that exposure to lead-sheathed cables constituted a sufficient injury in his efforts to bring a proposed class action against the carrier. Plaintiff Mark Tiger brought the class action before U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania against Verizon Communications Inc. and Verizon Pennsylvania LLC, alleging that Verizon’s failure to properly dispose of its toxic lead-sheathed telecommunications cables had harmed utility pole workers who were occupationally exposed to them.
Verizon moved to dismiss Tiger’s first amended complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. After consideration, the court granted Verizon’s motion saying he had not established that he “lacks standing,” that his claims were “untimely,” and that he failed to state a claim as a matter of law under each count.
The Court stated “Even if Mr. Tiger continued to be exposed to lead, nothing in the complaint indicates that injury is imminent or that there is a substantial risk that the injury will occur, e.g., that he ‘will or is reasonably likely to develop’ a lead-related disease.” Citing the case of Sommerville, 2024 WL 2139394: “Mere conjecture that something has the potential to be harmful is not enough.” Even if the future injury is framed as an increased risk in developing a lead-related disease, the court ruled, “what amount of exposure and what blood lead level is likely to manifest in disease?”
Second, according to the Court, assuming that Tiger had continued to work as a utility worker, future lead exposure would have been conjectural. “Because Mr. Tiger has brought this lawsuit, it is common sense that [he is] now aware of the alleged risks associated with Verizon’s lead cables, and thus, the Court may assume that, in the future, he will take precautions in light of those known risks.”
The Court concluded by saying Verizon’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction was granted and the complaint was dismissed without prejudice.
Reader Interactions