Opinion ID: 715644
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Physical Impact

Text: 24 As we noted above, a plaintiff may state a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress only if the plaintiff suffers a physical impact or the defendant's conduct threatens [the plaintiff] imminently with physical impact--the zone of danger test. Gottshall at ----, 114 S.Ct. at 2410. 25 We disagree with the district court's finding that Buckley did not suffer sufficient impact with asbestos to sustain a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. We hold that the district court erred in granting Metro-North a judgment as a matter of law because, from the evidence presented at trial, a reasonable jury could conclude that Buckley suffered a physical impact with asbestos. 1 26 There is ample evidence in the record that the asbestos dust coated Buckley's skin and clothes, entering his nose, eyes, and mouth. Indeed, he could actually taste the chalky insulation material. When viewed in the light most favorable to Buckley, the evidence shows that he suffered a massive exposure to asbestos. 2 One need only visualize the image evoked by the pipe fitters' nickname--the snowmen of Grand Central--to understand the extent of Buckley's exposure to asbestos. 27 Furthermore, Buckley's expert witnesses testified that Buckley inhaled a large quantity of thin, needle-like asbestos fibers due to the work conditions imposed by Metro-North. When inhaled, asbestos fibers become imbedded in lung tissue and, according to Buckley's experts, cause subclinical changes to occur. Eventually, after ten to forty years, deadly and debilitating diseases may develop. 28 Metro-North argues that such exposure does not constitute an impact unless clinical signs of asbestos-related disease develop. Though both experts testified that Buckley's lungs had suffered subclinical changes, they admitted that Buckley had yet to display any verifiable clinical signs of asbestos exposure. However, the evidence Buckley presented showed that the absence of clinically verifiable proof is not dispositive. Given the strong evidence of massive exposure and the expert testimony regarding the likelihood of inhalation and its effect, we think a reasonable jury could find that Buckley suffered a physical impact from large amounts of asbestos fibers despite the lack of clinical proof of asbestos exposure. We cannot find as a matter of law that Buckley's injuries are not genuine simply because they are subcellular. The effect of asbestos in the lungs is a subtle, complex matter. It is for the jury, assisted by expert testimony, to determine whether Buckley has suffered present harm. 29 Our recent decision in Marchica v. Long Island R.R. Co., 31 F.3d 1197 (2d Cir.1994), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 727, 130 L.Ed.2d 631 (1995), supports our conclusion that a reasonable jury could find that Buckley sustained a physical impact from his exposure to asbestos. In Marchica, we found that a railroad worker suffered a physical impact sufficient to recover for fear of contracting the AIDS virus when a discarded hypodermic needle stabbed the worker's hand while he was cleaning up an area of a railroad station notorious as a haven for drug users. Id. at 1206. We held that, even though it was never determined that the AIDS virus was present in the needle, such an injury would cause a reasonable person to develop a fear of AIDS. Id. We noted that [h]ad Marchica merely touched the discarded needle and become concerned about the possibility of developing AIDS, the case would stand on a very different footing. Id. at 1204. The distinction between a stab wound and a touch rests upon the method by which the AIDS virus is transmitted. The AIDS virus cannot be contracted simply by touching: penetration and contact with body fluid is required. A fear of developing AIDS absent such contact would be unreasonable. 30 Similarly, the fear of developing an asbestos-related disease from an incidental contact with asbestos would be unreasonable. Asbestos, as the evidence at trial showed, exists in small quantities in the air we breathe each day and such low-level contacts do not in any way affect the vast majority of people. Buckley, however, does not claim that his fear arises from normal contact with asbestos in the ambient air. Rather, as Buckley's counsel explained, Buckley's fear stems from exposure to hazardous amounts of asbestos for an average of one hour per day while actual[ly] removal[ing], handling and working [with] asbestos insulation ... during the period from June of 1985 to June of 1988. Buckley offered evidence that such an exposure causes a measurable increase in the possibility of his developing asbestos-related disease. Just like the needle puncture in Marchica, Buckley's three years of daily contact with the cancer-causing substance--contact that from time to time left him covered from head to toe in asbestos dust--constitutes a physical impact that would lead a reasonable person to fear asbestos-related cancer. 31 For this reason, we reject the FELA cases finding that asbestos fiber inhalation cannot constitute an injury. See Schweitzer v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 758 F.2d 936, 942 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 864, 106 S.Ct. 183, 88 L.Ed.2d 152 (1985); Amendola v. Kansas City So. Ry. Co., 699 F.Supp. 1401, 1403 n. 3, 1410-11 (W.D.Mo.1988). While these cases express a concern over speculative or frivolous lawsuits, the Marchica case makes clear that the relevant inquiry is whether the impact would cause fear in a reasonable person. To make this determination, a jury must take into account the nature of the toxic substance, its method of transmission into the body, the extent of the exposure to the substance and how the disease develops in response to the presence of the toxic substance in the body. Given the evidence of Buckley's prolonged and pronounced exposure to asbestos, a jury may find that he suffered an impact that would cause fear in a reasonable person. 32 Metro-North urges us to follow those common law fear-of-disease cases holding that exposure to a carcinogen is not in and of itself enough to constitute a physical impact. It is true that many cases hold that a fear-of-disease plaintiff must prove both actual exposure to a disease and a reasonable medical probability of later developing a disease. See Marchica, 31 F.3d at 1204 and cases cited therein; Doner v. Ed Adams Contracting Inc., 208 A.D.2d 1072, 1072-73, 617 N.Y.S.2d 565, 566 (3d Dept.1994) (though plaintiff could prove actual exposure to asbestos, plaintiff failed to show he was likely to contract a disease and thus could not prevail on emotional distress claim). Other courts insist a plaintiff prove the exposure caused a present physical injury, that a future disease will likely develop, or that the emotional injury has manifested itself physically. See Marchica, 31 F.3d at 1204 and cases cited therein; In re Hawaii Federal Asbestos Cases, 734 F.Supp. 1563, 1569-70 (D.Haw.1990) (fear of asbestos disease not rational unless plaintiff experiences functional impairment); Burns v. Jaquays Mining Corp., 156 Ariz. 375, 378, 752 P.2d 28, 31 (Ct.App.1987) (no cause of action for fear of disease absent bodily injury); Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. Cox, 481 So.2d 517, 527-28 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1985) (same). 33 As we noted in Marchica, however, such cases are inapposite when, as here, a plaintiff's emotional distress results from an actual physical impact or injury. See Marchica, 31 F.3d at 1204. 3 Furthermore, many courts have found that under certain circumstances exposure to asbestos or other disease-causing agents may constitute an impact sufficient to sustain a claim for fear of disease. See, e.g., Hagerty, 788 F.2d at 318 n. 1 (seaman soaked with toxic chemicals suffered a physical injury from the drenching which constitutes an impact); Wetherill v. University of Chicago, 565 F.Supp. 1553, 1560 (N.D.Ill.1983) (prenatal exposure to DES is a physical impact); Lavelle v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 30 Ohio Misc.2d 11, 14, 507 N.E.2d 476, 480 (Com.Pl.1987) (exposure to asbestos while working with insulation is a physical contact sufficient to allow fear of cancer claim to proceed). We choose to follow these cases and hold that a reasonable jury could find that Buckley suffered a physical impact. 34 We decline to narrow our view of physical impact in order to avoid the flood of litigation that Metro-North claims we will unleash by this decision. First, a more flexible view of physical impact is most consistent with FELA's remedial nature. Marchica, 31 F.3d at 1206. Second, only a narrow class of plaintiffs may sue under FELA, see Gottshall, --- U.S. at ----, 114 S.Ct. at 2412 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting), and FELA protects this group of plaintiffs from the negligent acts of employers to a greater extent than the plaintiffs would be protected at common law. Third, even within the narrow class of FELA plaintiffs, Buckley and the other snowmen present what we believe is an unusual case, as Buckley's exposure to asbestos was massive, lengthy, and tangible. Finally, Metro-North has admitted that it negligently allowed the pipe fitters to perform their duties without any knowledge on their part of the presence of asbestos or any training in its proper handling. We do not believe that the magnitude of Metro-North's wrong should limit the damages awarded against it. Thus, taking all inferences in favor of Buckley, we find that a jury, presented with the evidence in this case, may find that Buckley suffered an impact that would cause fear in a reasonable person.