CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Hensley
Headline: Court reverses state ruling and requires trial courts to give defendants’ requested 'genuine and serious' jury instructions in asbestos fear-of-cancer claims, tightening proof for emotional-distress awards.
Holding: The Court held that trial courts must, upon a defendant’s request, instruct juries that fear-of-cancer damages in FELA asbestos cases must be proven as "genuine and serious," and reversed the Tennessee court's judgment.
- Trial judges must give requested genuine-and-serious instructions in FELA asbestos cases.
- Defendants can require juries to apply stricter proof for fear-of-cancer emotional-distress awards.
- Case is sent back to state court for further proceedings under the opinion.
Summary
Background
Thurston Hensley, a railroad electrician, sued his employer CSX claiming workplace exposure caused asbestosis and sought pain-and-suffering damages, including fear of developing lung cancer. After a three-week trial, CSX asked the judge to instruct the jury that any fear-of-cancer award required proof the fear was "genuine and serious" and suggested factors jurors could consider. The trial court refused those requests, and the jury returned a $5 million verdict for Hensley. The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed that refusal.
Reasoning
The main question was whether this Court’s earlier decision in Ayers required trial courts, on a defendant’s request, to instruct juries that fear-of-cancer damages must be proven as "genuine and serious." The Court said yes. It explained that Ayers allowed fear-of-cancer damages only with safeguards and listed jury instructions as one such safeguard. The Supreme Court found the Tennessee courts had misread Ayers, held that refusing the requested instruction was clear error, reversed the state appellate decision, and sent the case back for further proceedings.
Real world impact
Trial judges handling FELA asbestos claims must give requested instructions that require jurors to find a plaintiff’s fear of cancer is genuine and serious. The decision reinforces jury instructions as a protective check against awards driven by emotion and affects plaintiffs, defendants, juries, and judges. The case is remanded to state court, so the final damages outcome could still change on further proceedings.
Dissents or concurrances
Two Justices dissented. Justice Stevens argued Ayers did not mandate automatic instructions and favored judicial gatekeeping and deference to the jury; Justice Ginsburg argued the trial court properly rejected the elaborate defense instructions and would have denied review.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?