Burk v. Sage Products

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · 1990 · Torts

TortsEmotional distressFear of diseaseProducts liabilitySummary judgmentfear of AIDSemotional distressexposure requirement

Facts

Plaintiff, a paramedic at Mercy Catholic Medical Center, alleged that on January 18, 1989, he was stuck by a needle protruding from defendant’s Sharps Disposable Container. He claimed emotional distress and related ailments based on fear of contracting AIDS, asserting that several AIDS patients had been seen on the hospital floor that day. Plaintiff admitted he could not prove the needle had been used on an AIDS patient and had tested negative for HIV antibodies on five separate occasions, including more than one year after the incident. Plaintiff’s wife also sought recovery for deterioration of their marriage allegedly caused by plaintiff’s emotional distress.

Issue

Can a plaintiff recover for emotional distress based on fear of contracting AIDS when he cannot prove that the needle that stuck him exposed him to the AIDS virus, and when subsequent HIV tests indicate he is not infected? Can his wife maintain derivative claims based on that alleged emotional injury?

Rule

Under Pennsylvania law as applied by this court, damages for fear of contracting a disease are not recoverable unless the plaintiff can show exposure to the disease-causing agent; injuries stemming from fear of initial exposure are not compensable. In addition, where medical evidence shows to a high degree of certainty that the plaintiff will not develop the disease, recovery for fear of contracting that disease is not allowed.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Philadelphia, Lena Ortiz, a hospital janitor, is cut by a cracked disposal bin manufactured by Keystone Medical Plastics. She knows that patients with hepatitis C were treated on the floor that week, but she cannot identify whether the shard or any item in the bin had contacted infected blood. She sues for emotional distress based on fear of contracting hepatitis C.

Under the majority rule applied here, which is the strongest basis for summary judgment against Lena on her fear-of-disease claim?

Explanation. The governing rule requires proof of exposure to the disease-causing agent before fear-of-disease damages are recoverable. The majority distinguished cases where exposure was established and only future onset was uncertain. Here, Lena can show only possible contact with contaminated materials, not actual exposure to the virus. That failure is the key defect in her claim. (Derived from Burk v. Sage Products (n.d.).)