Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Ayers
123 S. Ct. 1210, 2003 U.S. LEXIS 1956, 155 L. Ed. 2d 261 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), a worker who suffers a physical injury (asbestosis) due to an employer's negligence can recover damages for the related mental anguish of fearing a future disease (cancer). Additionally, a negligent railroad employer is liable for the entirety of the worker's damages, even if other non-railroad entities also contributed to the injury.
Facts:
- Six former employees of Norfolk & Western Railway Company (Norfolk) were negligently exposed to asbestos during their employment.
- As a result of this exposure, all six men developed asbestosis, a noncancerous scarring of the lungs.
- The employees alleged they suffered mental anguish and a present fear of developing asbestos-related cancers like mesothelioma and lung cancer in the future.
- Evidence showed that asbestosis sufferers, particularly those with smoking histories, have a significantly increased risk of developing these cancers.
- Two of the employees, Carl Butler and Freeman Ayers, had also been significantly exposed to asbestos while working for other, non-railroad employers.
- Norfolk's negligence was found to have contributed, at least in part, to each employee's asbestosis.
Procedural Posture:
- Six former employees sued their former employer, Norfolk & Western Railway Company, in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia (a state trial court) under FELA.
- Before trial, Norfolk's motions to exclude evidence of cancer fear and to instruct the jury to apportion damages were denied by the trial court.
- A jury returned verdicts in favor of all six employees, with total awards ranging from $770,000 to $1.2 million per person.
- The trial court denied Norfolk's motion for a new trial.
- The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia (the state's highest court) denied Norfolk's petition for appeal.
- Norfolk then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), may a railroad worker who has developed asbestosis from workplace asbestos exposure recover damages for pain and suffering that include a genuine and serious fear of developing cancer? 2. Under FELA, is a railroad whose negligence contributed to an employee's injury entitled to have the damages apportioned to reflect the causal contributions of other tortfeasors, such as prior employers or asbestos manufacturers?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Ginsburg
1. Yes. A railroad worker suffering from the actionable physical injury of asbestosis, caused by work-related asbestos exposure, may recover mental anguish damages resulting from a genuine and serious fear of developing cancer as part of their pain and suffering award. The Court distinguished this case from Metro-North v. Buckley, where the plaintiff was merely exposed to asbestos but was disease-free. Here, the claimants suffer from a cognizable physical injury (asbestosis), and the fear of cancer is a 'parasitic' harm attached to that injury. The common law has long permitted recovery for fear of future illness when it accompanies a present physical injury. The fear results from the same negligent conduct (asbestos exposure) that caused the physical harm, making it compensable. This approach is limited to those with a diagnosed disease, thus avoiding the 'unlimited and unpredictable liability' that concerned the Court in cases involving exposure-only plaintiffs. 2. No. A railroad is not entitled to an initial apportionment of damages among potentially liable tortfeasors. FELA's text states a railroad is liable for injuries resulting 'in whole or in part' from its negligence. This language supports the traditional common-law rule of joint and several liability, meaning any one negligent party can be held responsible for the entire damage. The statute only provides for apportionment between the employee and employer for comparative negligence, not among multiple tortfeasors. Therefore, the railroad is fully liable to the employee and bears the burden of seeking contribution from other responsible parties in a separate action.
Dissenting - Justice Kennedy
1. No. Damages for fear of cancer should not be recoverable as part of the pain and suffering associated with asbestosis. The dissent argues that allowing recovery for such a 'brooding, contemplative fear' threatens to deplete limited funds that should be reserved for those who actually develop cancer. This fear is not a direct consequence of the asbestosis itself, as there is no causal link between asbestosis and cancer, only a correlation. Therefore, this claim is more analogous to a stand-alone claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, which should be barred under the Court's precedents in Gottshall and Metro-North. Awarding speculative damages for unrealized fears undermines FELA's goal of compensating employees for actual, severe injuries. (Justice Kennedy concurred with the majority's holding on the issue of apportionment).
Dissenting - Justice Breyer
1. No. The law does not permit recovery for 'fear of cancer' in this case. The dissent emphasizes that common law is unsettled and that policy considerations should guide the Court's decision. It is nearly impossible for a jury to evaluate and assign a monetary value to the incremental increase in cancer fear without engaging in pure speculation. Permitting such awards is perverse because it compensates less serious injuries at the expense of more serious future harms, as the massive costs of asbestos litigation threaten to exhaust available funds for actual cancer victims. The dissent proposes a more restrictive rule, allowing recovery only where the fear is unusually severe and detrimentally affects the plaintiff's daily life. (Justice Breyer concurred with the majority's holding on the issue of apportionment).
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the landscape of FELA emotional distress claims by solidifying the distinction between plaintiffs who are merely exposed to a toxic substance and those who have a manifested physical disease. By categorizing fear of cancer as a 'parasitic' damage recoverable by asbestosis sufferers, the Court expanded the scope of pain and suffering damages for those with present injuries, while reaffirming the bar on recovery for exposure-only plaintiffs established in Metro-North. The ruling on joint and several liability reinforces FELA's pro-plaintiff posture, simplifying the employee's path to full recovery by placing the burden of pursuing other responsible parties squarely on the negligent railroad employer.
