Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
863 P.2d 795 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a negligence action, a plaintiff may recover damages for emotional distress due to fear of cancer from toxic exposure, absent physical injury, only by proving the cancer is more likely than not to occur. However, if the defendant's conduct involved oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff need only prove the fear is reasonable and stems from a significant, medically corroborated increase in risk.
Facts:
- From 1963 to 1980, Firestone Tire and Rubber Company operated a tire manufacturing plant near Salinas, California.
- In 1967, Firestone contracted to dispose of its industrial waste at the Crazy Horse landfill, a Class II facility that prohibited toxic liquids due to the risk of groundwater contamination.
- SDS, the landfill operator, explicitly informed Firestone that solvents, cleaning fluids, oils, or liquids were not permitted.
- Despite assurances to the contrary, Firestone sent large quantities of liquid toxic waste, including known human carcinogens like benzene and vinyl chloride, to the landfill.
- In 1977, after a company memorandum outlined proper, lawful hazardous waste disposal procedures, a plant manager ordered a halt to the costly, compliant program to increase profitability.
- As a result, Firestone knowingly resumed its illegal dumping of hazardous materials at the Crazy Horse landfill.
- Frank and Shirley Potter and Joe and Linda Plescia (plaintiffs) lived on property adjacent to the landfill and relied on domestic water wells for their water supply.
- In 1984, the plaintiffs discovered their well water was contaminated with the same 'fingerprint' of toxic chemicals Firestone had dumped, though none of them had yet developed cancer or a precancerous condition.
Procedural Posture:
- The Potters and the Plescias filed separate lawsuits against Firestone in a California superior court (trial court).
- The cases were consolidated and tried in a bench trial.
- The trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs on theories of negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and strict liability, awarding compensatory damages for fear of cancer, medical monitoring, and other harms, as well as punitive damages.
- Firestone, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the California Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the awards for fear of cancer and punitive damages but reversed the award for medical monitoring costs.
- The California Supreme Court granted review to resolve the issues.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a negligence action without a present physical injury, may a plaintiff recover damages for emotional distress stemming from a fear of developing cancer in the future due to toxic exposure?
Opinions:
Majority - Baxter, J.
Yes, but generally only if the plaintiff proves it is more likely than not that the cancer will develop. The court established a two-tiered standard for recovering 'fear of cancer' damages in negligence actions without a present physical injury. The general rule requires a plaintiff to prove through reliable medical or scientific opinion that it is 'more likely than not' (a greater than 50% probability) that they will develop cancer due to the exposure. The court based this high threshold on public policy concerns, including the need to limit liability for a potentially enormous class of plaintiffs and prevent a flood of speculative litigation that could overwhelm courts and insurers. However, the court created a significant exception to this rule: if the defendant's conduct causing the exposure amounted to 'oppression, fraud, or malice' under Civil Code § 3294, the plaintiff does not need to meet the 'more likely than not' standard. In such cases, recovery is permitted if the plaintiff proves their fear is reasonable, genuine, and stems from a knowledge, corroborated by medical opinion, that the exposure has caused a 'significant' increase in their risk of cancer. The court found Firestone's conduct—knowingly violating the law and its own policies to save money—met this malice standard. On other issues, the court held that medical monitoring costs are recoverable without physical injury if reliable expert testimony shows monitoring is a reasonably certain consequence of the exposure. Finally, the court reversed the intentional infliction of emotional distress finding, holding it requires conduct 'directed at' a specific plaintiff of whom the defendant is aware, which was not clearly established here.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Mosk, J.
Yes, but the 'more likely than not' standard for simple negligence is wrong, and the court's analysis of intentional infliction of emotional distress is incorrect. This opinion agrees that plaintiffs should recover for fear of cancer without physical injury. However, it rejects the majority's high 'more likely than not' threshold for ordinary negligence cases. More importantly, it argues the majority misapplied the precedent from Christensen regarding intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). The recklessness standard for IIED does not require a defendant to know of specific, individual plaintiffs; it is enough that a defendant acts with reckless disregard of the high probability that their conduct will cause emotional distress to those within the zone of danger. Firestone’s conduct clearly met this standard, and the IIED judgment should have been affirmed.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Kennard, J.
Yes, but the majority places liability for malicious conduct in the wrong legal category. This opinion agrees with the majority's two-tiered framework for liability but argues that it is logically inconsistent to classify a claim requiring proof of malice as a subspecies of negligence. Negligence is, by definition, an unintentional tort, while malice involves intentional or conscious disregard of probable harm. The cause of action for maliciously induced fear of cancer should instead be situated within an intentional tort framework, such as 'willful misconduct' or a new tort of 'malicious toxic contamination,' to maintain clarity and doctrinal consistency in the law.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - George, J.
Yes, and the majority's 'more likely than not' standard for negligence is a departure from established law that unjustly harms victims. This opinion argues that under well-settled California tort principles, any person placed in personal danger by a defendant's negligence is entitled to recover for reasonably foreseeable emotional distress. The majority's creation of a new, high 'more likely than not' barrier denies recovery to victims with a genuine and reasonable fear, even if their chance of getting cancer is substantial (e.g., 25-30%). The policy rationale of limiting liability is misapplied; a defendant's liability should not decrease simply because their negligent conduct harmed a large number of people. The opinion notes that other jurisdictions correctly distinguish between claims for 'increased risk' of future disease (which require the 'more likely than not' showing) and claims for the present injury of 'fear of cancer' (which do not).
Analysis:
This landmark decision established a novel, two-tiered standard for recovering damages for 'fear of cancer' in California, significantly impacting toxic tort litigation. By imposing a high 'more likely than not' threshold for ordinary negligence, the court severely limited claims based on mere exposure, reflecting a judicial policy to curb potentially limitless and speculative litigation. However, the 'malice' exception creates a powerful tool for plaintiffs to bypass this strict standard when a defendant's conduct is particularly egregious, shifting the focus from the probability of harm to the defendant's culpability. The ruling also set a crucial precedent by allowing recovery for future medical monitoring costs without a present physical injury, adopting a multi-factor test that has been widely influential in other jurisdictions.
