Document: Cite as: 556 U. S. ____ (2009) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC. v. THURSTON HENSLEY ON PETITION FOR WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS TENNESSEE, EASTERN DIVISION No. 08–1034. Decided June 1, 2009 PER CURIAM. The Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), 35 Stat. 65, as amended, provides that employees of common carrier railroads may recover for work-related injuries caused in whole or part by their railroad-employer’s negligence. See 45 U.S. C. §§51–60. In this case respon dent Thurston Hensley sued petitioner Transporta tion, Inc., Tennessee state court. Hensley, who was employed an electrician, alleged the rail road negligently him to contract asbestosis—a noncancerous scarring lung tissue long-term exposure asbestos. sought pain-and-suffering damages from based on, among other things, his fear developing cancer future. Court addressed subject Norfolk & Western R. Co. Ayers, 538 135 (2003), and held those types are available certain FELA cases. stated: “Norfolk presented question whether a plaintiff has asbestosis but not can dam ages under without proof physical manifestations claimed emotional distress. Our answer is yes, with important reser vation. We affirm only qualification asbesto sis sufferer seek compensation element asbestosis-related pain suffer ing damages. It incumbent upon such complain 2 TRANSP., ant, however, prove genuine serious.” Id., at 157 (internal quotation marks, citation, alteration omitted). At close 3-week trial, submit ted proposed jury instructions trial two instructions—requests 30 33—related Hensley’s claim fear-of-cancer Request stated basic requirements obtain Ayers. Supp. Tech. Record, Exh. A, p. 4 (“Plaintiff also alleging he suffers compensable cancer. order recover, Plaintiff must demonstrate . serious”). 33 factors could consider applying Ayers standard. 5–6. court denied both requests over CSX’s objections, instructed legal standard ages. 17 Tr. 2410–2415; 20 id., 2903–2904. After hours deliberations, found awarded $5 million Appeals affirmed. 278 S.W.3d 282 (2008). described our opinion “specifi cally limit[ed]” “narrow issue” S.W.3d, 300. According Appeals, “did discuss authorize instruc tions on issue, merely ruled substantive law.” 300 marks reasoned “little if any purpose would be served instructing plaintiff’s ‘genuine serious.’ ” Ibid. That because “the mere suggestion possibility potential evoke raw emotions,” “[a]ny juror might predisposed grant large award shaky evidence unlikely swayed language Ayers.” 3 Instead, stated, “it courts serve gatekeepers” ensuring of-cancer claims “do go unless there credible serious’ fear.” petitioned certiorari, arguing Tennes see misread misapplied Court’s decision contention correct. ruling refusal give instruction, were clear error. Con trary assertion expressly recognized several “verdict control devices [are] court” when seeks U.S., 159, n. 19. Those “include, defendant’s request, charge each requested tion substance genuine-and-serious standard, erred giving one. reasons given upholding denial instruction do withstand scrutiny. have been futile touches many lives therefore “evoke[s] [jurors’] emotions.” S.W. 3d, This serious misunderstanding nature function jury. system prem ised idea rationality careful regard court’s will confine exclude jurors’ emotions. Jurors routinely impartial factfinders cases involve sensitive, even life-and-death mat ters. cases, all juries presumed follow instructions. Greer Miller, 483 756, 766, 8 (1987). And correctly its duty “follow instructions.” 2882. Instructing futile. To contrary, fact “evoke emotions” powerful reason instruct proper Giving point particu larly context. volume pending asbestos enhances danger jury, instructions, distress slight contracting But said more required. Although plaintiffs fear-of some they satisfy high them. 157– 158, 17. Refusing defendants’ render it meaningless. no that, apply sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges. sure, “review sufficiency” another devices” determination sufficient send same met burden should succeed out right. Put way, properly find “genuine serious” legally rule issue. why sufficiency reviews separate protections against imposing unbounded liability defendants claims. When plain tiffs cancer, 5 struck delicate balance between defen dants—and did so backdrop systemic difficulties posed “elephantine mass cases.” 166 Jury stating balance, 19, de fendant’s request. conflicts Hedgecorth Union Pacific Co., 210 220, 227–229 (Mo. App. 2006) (same). petition certiorari granted. motions leave file briefs amici curiae American Tort Reform Association, et al.; Association Railroads; Washington Legal Foundation judgment reversed, remanded further proceedings inconsistent opinion. ordered. STEVENS, J., dissenting JUSTICE dissenting. During years employment L&N Railroad (now Transportation, CSX), respondent regularly exposed solvent eventually toxic encephalopathy, incurable permanent form brain damage ended ability work. He gave rise chronic pulmonary condition known asbestosis. As we previously noted, sufferers “have signifi cant (one ten) risk dying mesothelioma, fatal lining abdominal cavity.” 135, 142 (2003). addition claiming economic inju ries diseases, claim: first had proving “that [his] serious,” Pet. Cert. 70a; second illustrated ways which seri ous.1 rejected —————— (request 33) jury: “In determining suffered resulting reasonable result diagnosis asbestosis, you determine demonstrated serious. making determination, take into account stead charged accordance Tennessee’s Pattern Instructions suffering. Brief Opposition 14; unanimously liable causing 58a, $5,000,000 compensatory damages—an never chal lenged excessive. 23. Be cause request special verdict interrogatory, know what portion (if any) meant compensate nullify jury’s rests premise footnote 19 created requires judges, demand, com pensable. issue states: prediction adhering line drawn Gottshall Metro-North will, setting, bank rupt defendants, dissents largely disregard, inter alia, These include, serious, review sufficiency, particularized voiced than general concern about future health, insomnia stress related conditions, psychiatric medical attention symptoms, consulted counselors ministers concerning fear, symptoms produced witnesses corroborate 70a–71a; 227 Ct. (noting identical Railroad). forms.” (citations Naturally read, points defendant right requested, does suggest certainly indi cate treated per se reversible my view I joined majority. Since appellate courts—the Missouri 3d 220 (2006), cert. denied, 552 ___ (2007)—have read do. understood primary gatekeeper, refusing allow absent Both affirmed decisions reject genu ine-and-serious rely instead doing, rightly noted focused cognizable §§51–60, Hedgecorth, 229; 282, 330 (Tenn. 2008) (case below). correctly. Immediately after disputed statement made passing, “specifically only, ques aligned injury stems current injury, presenting stand-alone negligent infliction distress.” 159. siding former option, followed common-law “pain suffering include accompanies injury.” 148 occasion to, not, offer federal displace various juries. fact, specifically took dissents’ readiness ‘develop law’ contain verdicts FELA.” Yet, inexplicably, today reads Ayers—in dicta less—to done precisely criticized. rush reverse issues mandate bound invite questions. For instance, error deny fail employ forms? all, too device listed How much discre any, accorded decide necessary? Is list verdict-control identified exhaustive? generate confusion clarity inher ent summary decisional process parties opportunity brief argue merits. A well justify foray correc compelled reading appropriate amount respect counseled stay hand. authorizes fresh response decided con cluding practical matter, hard believe while “no obli gation mathematical certainty intangi ble things loss enjoyment life,” has, indeed, oc curred.” 62a. unwise disposition.2 Accordingly, respectfully dissent. concludes charge, instructional nevertheless harmless remains open remand Appeals. Cf. Hedgpeth Pulido, 555 (2008) (per curiam); Neder United States, 527 (1999); Rose Clark, 478 570 (1986). GINSBURG, support simple instruction: “It [the plaintiff] [of cancer] ous,” 157. defense-oriented re quested, far elaborate, compare ante, curiam), 70a–71a, refused Nothing required deliver, own initiative, fitting substitute. dissent reversal.

Category: 7