Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Ayers

2003-03-10

Headline: Workers with asbestosis can recover fear-of-cancer pain-and-suffering damages, and railroads remain fully liable without initial apportionment, leaving employers to pursue contribution from other responsible companies.

Holding: The Court held that railroad employees diagnosed with asbestosis may recover damages for genuine fear of developing cancer as part of pain and suffering, and that FELA permits full recovery from the railroad without initial apportionment among other contributors.

Real World Impact:

Allows asbestosis sufferers to recover for genuine fear of future cancer.
Keeps railroads fully liable and forces them to seek contribution from others.
May increase asbestos-related damage awards and litigation pressure on employers.

Topics: workplace asbestos disease, fear-of-cancer damages, railroad employer liability, damage sharing and contribution

Summary

Background

Six former railroad workers who suffer from asbestosis sued their former employer, Norfolk & Western Railway, under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). They sought damages that included mental anguish caused by fear of developing cancer after workplace asbestos exposure. The trial allowed evidence about cancer risk, the jury returned multi-hundred-thousand-dollar awards, and Norfolk challenged instructions about fear-of-cancer damages and apportionment among multiple contributors.

Reasoning

The Court addressed two questions: whether an asbestosis sufferer may recover emotional distress for fear of cancer as part of pain and suffering, and whether FELA requires dividing damages among other possible causes. Relying on earlier FELA decisions, the Court distinguished workers who are merely exposed from those who already suffer disease. It held that workers with asbestosis may seek pain-and-suffering damages for genuine, serious fear of cancer linked to their disease. The Court also held that FELA does not mandate initial apportionment; a railroad found negligent may be held responsible for the employee's full damages and must seek contribution from other parties.

Real world impact

The decision lets asbestosis sufferers recover for present fear of cancer if they prove the fear is genuine and serious. It keeps the practical burden on employers to pursue contribution or indemnity from other possible wrongdoers. The Court emphasized that it did not revisit the sufficiency of the specific evidence or the reasonableness of the jury awards in these particular trials.

Dissents or concurrances

Justices Kennedy and Breyer agreed with parts of the ruling but dissented from allowing fear-of-cancer damages, warning such awards could be speculative and might deplete compensation resources for future, seriously ill asbestos victims.