Metro-North Commuter Railroad Co. v. Buckley

Supreme Court of the United States · 1997 · Torts

TortsFELAemotional distresszone of dangerphysical impactasbestos exposurefear of cancermedical monitoring

Facts

Michael Buckley worked as a pipefitter for Metro-North and for about three years was exposed to asbestos-containing insulation dust for roughly one hour each working day. Since attending an asbestos awareness class in 1987, he feared developing cancer, and his experts testified that the exposure created an added risk of death from cancer or other asbestos-related disease. Since 1989 he has undergone periodic medical checkups, but those examinations have revealed no cancer and no other asbestos-related disease. Metro-North conceded negligence, but Buckley had no manifested symptoms or disease and sought damages only for emotional distress and future medical monitoring costs.

Issue

Under FELA, may a railroad worker who was negligently exposed to asbestos but has no symptoms or diagnosed disease recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress? If not, may such an asymptomatic plaintiff nonetheless recover the economic costs of future medical monitoring as a separate injury?

Rule

Under FELA, a plaintiff seeking recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress must satisfy the common-law zone of danger test, which permits recovery for those who sustain a physical impact or are placed in immediate risk of physical harm. The "physical impact" recognized in Gottshall does not include mere exposure to a substance that poses only a risk of disease at a substantially later time, where no immediate traumatic harm is threatened. An asymptomatic plaintiff also has not shown entitlement under FELA to an unqualified, traditional tort remedy of lump-sum medical monitoring damages based solely on such exposure.

🔒

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.

Jamal Ortiz works for Lakefront Rail Lines in Cleveland as a maintenance worker. Because the railroad negligently failed to provide proper ventilation, he inhaled diesel-laden particulate matter during daily shifts for eight months, then became intensely afraid of developing lung cancer, but all examinations show no disease and no physical symptoms.

If Jamal sues under FELA seeking damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress based solely on his fear of future cancer, which is the best answer?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, FELA emotional-distress claims are governed by the common-law zone-of-danger test. That test permits recovery only for plaintiffs who sustain a qualifying physical impact or are placed in immediate risk of physical harm. The Court held that simple exposure to a toxic substance that threatens only disease at a substantially later time is not the relevant 'physical impact.' Because Jamal is asymptomatic and alleges only fear of future illness from exposure, his emotional-distress claim fails.