Ayers v. Township of Jackson
106 N.J. 557, 525 A.2d 287 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act, a claim for the cost of future medical surveillance is compensable if it is reasonable and necessary due to exposure to toxic substances, even without proof of present physical injury. However, claims for an unquantified enhanced risk of future disease are too speculative to be compensable, and claims for emotional distress are barred as a form of 'pain and suffering'.
Facts:
- Starting in 1972, Jackson Township operated the Legler landfill.
- The township failed to monitor the types of liquid waste dumped and ignored its duty to control the depth of waste trenches as required by its permit.
- The township's operation of the landfill resulted in toxic pollutants, including known carcinogens like benzene and acetone, leaching into the Cohansey Aquifer.
- This contamination poisoned the well water of 339 residents, who used the water for drinking, cooking, and bathing for a period of up to six years.
- In November 1978, the local Board of Health advised the residents not to use their well water.
- For nearly two years, the affected residents were deprived of running water and had to obtain water from a primitive system involving large, heavy barrels delivered to their properties.
Procedural Posture:
- 339 residents of Jackson Township sued the township in the New Jersey Law Division (trial court) for damages resulting from contaminated well water.
- Before trial, the trial court granted the township's summary judgment motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim for 'enhanced risk' of future illness.
- However, the trial court denied the township's motion to dismiss the claim for the costs of future medical surveillance.
- A jury found the township's conduct was 'palpably unreasonable' and awarded plaintiffs over $15.8 million, including separate amounts for loss of quality of life, emotional distress, and future medical surveillance.
- The township appealed to the New Jersey Appellate Division.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the award for loss of quality of life but reversed the awards for emotional distress and medical surveillance.
- The plaintiffs petitioned for certification to the New Jersey Supreme Court to review the reversal of the emotional distress and medical surveillance awards, and the township cross-petitioned to review the affirmance of the quality of life award.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act, may plaintiffs exposed to toxic chemicals due to a public entity's misconduct recover damages for (1) loss of quality of life due to the disruption of their water supply, (2) emotional distress, (3) the unquantified enhanced risk of future disease, and (4) the cost of future medical surveillance?
Opinions:
Majority - Stein, Justice
A multi-part answer: (1) Yes, (2) No, (3) No, and (4) Yes. Plaintiffs may recover for loss of quality of life, which is a compensable form of damages for inconvenience and discomfort under nuisance law and is not barred as 'pain and suffering' under the Tort Claims Act. However, plaintiffs' claims for emotional distress, such as fear and anxiety, are barred by N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(d) as they constitute the subjective 'pain and suffering' the statute was intended to prohibit. Similarly, a claim for an unquantified enhanced risk of future disease is not cognizable because it is too speculative and would require juries to award damages for a potential injury that may never occur, contrary to the Act's policy of restraining novel causes of action against public entities. In contrast, the cost of future medical surveillance is a compensable item of damages because it represents a distinct economic loss made necessary by the defendant's tortious conduct. Recovery for medical surveillance is justified when there is a significant but unquantified risk of serious disease, as it promotes the public health interest in early detection and treatment and makes the tortfeasor bear a direct cost of its wrongdoing.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Handler, Justice
A multi-part answer: (1) Yes, (2) No, (3) Yes, and (4) Yes. The majority correctly allows recovery for quality of life and medical surveillance, but it is wrong to deny recovery for the enhanced risk of future disease. The exposure to toxic chemicals has already caused a present physical injury through cellular and genetic damage, and the resulting peril is a real and palpable harm, regardless of whether the risk can be precisely quantified. The court's refusal to compensate for this injury based on a fear of speculative lawsuits is an evasion of its duty to provide fair compensation for victims of serious tortious wrongs. Furthermore, while medical surveillance damages are appropriate, the majority's creation of a court-supervised fund for future cases is an unfair and discriminatory limitation on plaintiffs' ability to receive and use their compensation as they see fit.
Analysis:
This landmark toxic tort case established the viability of a claim for medical surveillance damages as a standalone cause of action, independent of a claim for present or probable future injury. It created a new pathway for plaintiffs exposed to hazardous substances to recover tangible, economic costs before a latent disease manifests. By rejecting claims for unquantified enhanced risk and emotional distress under the Tort Claims Act, the court carefully balanced the interests of compensating victims with the legislative policy of limiting the liability of public entities. This decision significantly influenced the development of toxic tort law nationwide, providing a framework for addressing pre-symptom injuries.
Unlock the full brief for Ayers v. Township of Jackson