Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. Ayers, 538 U.S. 135, 52 (2003)

Page:   Index   Previous  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  Next

186

NORFOLK & WESTERN R. CO. v. AYERS

Opinion of Breyer, J.

contemplative fear," ante, at 172 (opinion of Kennedy, J.), brought about by knowledge of exposure to a substance, or of a present condition, correlated with an elevated cancer risk—is associated quite generally with negligent exposure to toxic substances. In addition to generating fear of cancer, such exposure may well produce large numbers of plaintiffs, serious injuries, and large monetary awards—all against limited funds available for compensation. And, as the history of asbestos litigation shows, such a combination of circumstances can occur despite a threshold requirement of physical harm.

In such cases, as Justice Kennedy points out, a rule that allows everyone who suffers some physical harm to recover damages for fear of correlated cancer threatens, in practice, to exhaust the funds available for those who develop cancer in the future, including funds available to compensate for fear of cancer that has actually developed. Ante, at 168-170. It is estimated, for example, that asbestos litigation has already consumed over $50 billion and that the eventual cost may substantially exceed $200 billion. RAND Institute for Civil Justice, S. Carroll et al., Asbestos Litigation Costs and Compensation: An Interim Report 81 (2002), Petitioner's Supplemental Lodging, p. SL82 (hereinafter RAND Institute). The costs have driven dozens of companies into bankruptcy. Ante, at 169 (opinion of Kennedy, J.). They have also largely exhausted certain funds set aside for asbestos claimants—reducing the Johns-Manville Trust for asbestos claimants, for example, from a fund that promised to pay 100% of the value of liquidated claims to a fund that now pays only 5%. RAND Institute 79-80. The concern that tomorrow's actual cancer victims will recover nothing—for medical costs, pain, or fear—is genuine. Cf. ante, at 170 (opinion of Kennedy, J.). And that genuine concern requires this Court to make hard choices. Members of this Court have indicated that Congress should enact legislation to help resolve the asbestos problem. See, e. g., Ortiz v. Fi-

Page:   Index   Previous  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007