Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Fear Factor: Supreme Court Permits Mental Anguish Damages for Fear of Cancer
The Supreme Court's March 10th ruling in Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Ayers, No. 01-963, marks the Court's third recent foray into the federal tort law that is the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) and provides ammunition for plaintiffs in product liability cases who are seeking to recover damages for mental anguish. In Ayers, the Court, by a 5-4 majority, held that mental anguish damages resulting from fear of cancer may be recovered under FELA by a railroad worker suffering from asbestosis caused by asbestos workplace exposure. The Ayers ruling will be read by some as significantly expanding FELA recovery opportunities, and the ruling's reliance on non-FELA authorities (the Restatement of Torts, state court decisions, and so on) may suggest implications beyond FELA. Indeed, it seems likely that attorneys in non-FELA asbestos cases will try to use Ayers to expand their recoveries of damages for mental anguish resulting from fear of cancer. Further, nothing in the Court's opinion expressly limits the application of the case to the asbestos world, so its rule could also surface in other products contexts where the potential harm to a plaintiff may not be readily apparent. It is clear, however, that Ayers erects boundaries on FELA recovery that merit close attention, as do its two dissenting opinions, perhaps telegraphing where these aspects of the common law might “evolve” next.
Factual and Procedural History
Plaintiffs in Ayers were six retired employees of the Norfolk & Western Railway. They alleged that the railroad had negligently exposed them to asbestos in the course of their work. Claiming symptoms of asbestosis, they brought suit under FELA, a statute preempting state law tort claims in the railroad industry, in West Virginia state court.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.