Opinion ID: 1808951
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: fairness to these plaintiffs

Text: We are persuaded that to bar the suits in the Revard and Glazier cases would be unfair. In Michigan, in order to recover damages on the basis of future consequences, it is necessary for a plaintiff to demonstrate with reasonable certainty that the future consequences will occur. Prince v Lott, 369 Mich 606, 609; 120 NW2d 780 (1963). See also King v Neller, 228 Mich 15, 22; 199 NW 674 (1924) (only such future damages can be recovered as the evidence makes reasonably certain will necessarily result from the injury sustained). If Glazier or Revard had brought suit within three years of the discovery of asbestosis and attempted to recover for the likelihood of developing cancer in the future, either would have been unable to prove with reasonable certainty that he would develop cancer. It has been estimated that approximately fifteen percent of people with asbestosis later develop pleural mesothelioma. Pierce, supra at 659, n 2, citing Selikoff, Churg & Hammond, Relation between exposure to asbestos and mesothelioma, 272 New England J Med 560, 662 (1965). Similarly, it is difficult to quantify the additional risk of lung cancer posed by the asbestos exposure when, as in this case, the victim smoked cigarettes and cigarettes alone are a well-documented cause of lung cancer. Therefore, it is highly likely that in a suit brought for asbestosis Johns-Manville would have successfully defended on the ground that the chance that [the defendant] would develop lung cancer was too speculative to support a damage award. Pierce, supra at 666. Even if this evidence were considered, the award would probably be an amount commensurate with the probability that the plaintiff would contract cancer, rather than full damages. See, e.g., Eagle-Pitcher, supra at 522. So for Glazier and Revard this is not only their first suit, but their first opportunity to obtain full and adequate compensation.