Supreme Court Allows Recovery for Pain and Suffering Asbestos Damages
The Supreme Court has found that asbestos exposure plaintiffs can recover pain and suffering damages, provided that their fear of developing asbestos-related cancer is genuine and serious. In CSX Transportation Inc. v. Henley, the Court remanded the case of Thurston Henley, an electrician who contracted asbestosis while working for a railroad company, to determine whether his fear of developing cancer was genuine and serious.
Henley sought pain and suffering damages from CSX under the Federal Employers Liability Act (“FELA”) based on, among other things, his fear of developing asbestos-related cancers in the future. The Court had previously allowed pain and suffering damages in such cases in Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. Ayers, 538 U.S. 135 (2003), but limited pain and suffering damages to cases in which the plaintiff can establish that his fear of developing cancer is “genuine and serious.” The trial court, however, did not instruct jurors on the legal standard for fear-of-cancer damages, and the jury found for Henley and awarded him $5 million in damages.
The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, and stated that Ayers did not refer to jury instructions. The “genuine and serious” mandate for fear-of-cancer damages referred only to the legal standard that judges should apply when deciding whether pain and suffering damages were applicable.
In a per curiam decision, over a dissent by Justice Stevens, the United States Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, and stated that jurors must be instructed that an asbestos plaintiff’s fear of developing cancer must be genuine and serious to recover pain and suffering damages. The Court reasoned that, because of the amount of pending asbestos claims and because of jurors’ strong emotional reaction to cancer claims, jurors need to be instructed that the fear of cancer in FELA cases must satisfy a high standard. Henley’s case was remanded to the trial court, where he could receive a new trial that uses the “genuine and serious” jury instructions.
Justice Stevens argued that “genuine and serious” jury instructions only need to be given at the trial judges’ discretion. Justice Stevens believed that the per curiam opinion impractically interfered with trial court procedure, and misapplied the intention of the Court in Ayers.
The effect of the court’s decision is to allow plaintiffs suing under FELA who do not suffer from cancer and were exposed to asbestos obtain pain and suffering damages if they prove that their fear of cancer is “genuine and serious.” Jurors will be instructed on this standard before deliberating on fear-of-cancer damages. Read more about asbestos exposure lawsuits.
Tags: asbestos, Supreme Court