Potter v. Firestone Tire And Rubber Co.

863 P.2d 795 (1993)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D operated a tire manufacturing plant near Salinas. D sent large quantities of liquid waste containing a combination of semi-liquid toxic chemicals to the local landfill despite assurances it was not doing so. D openly and knowingly violated all types of waste disposal laws. Ps owned property and lived adjacent to the dump. Ps discovered that toxic chemicals had contaminated their domestic water wells. The chemicals included: benzene; toluene; chloroform; 1,1-dichloroethene; methylene chloride; tetrachloroethene; 1,1,1-trichloroethane; trichloroethene; and vinyl chloride. Of these, both benzene and vinyl chloride are known to be human carcinogens. Ps sued D for damages and declaratory relief alleging negligence, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and strict liability/ultrahazardous activity. The court found that D was negligent; that negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress were established; and that D's conduct was an ultrahazardous activity that would subject D to strict liability for resulting damages. Judgment was entered in favor of Ps. Ps were awarded damages totaling $800,000 for their lifelong fear of cancer and resultant emotional distress. The court awarded damages totaling $142,975 as the present value of the costs of such monitoring for cancer, based on Ps' life expectancies. The court also awarded plaintiffs damages totaling $269,500 for psychiatric illness and the cost of treating such illness, as well as damages totaling $108,100 for the general disruption of their lives and the invasion of their privacy. Finally, the court awarded punitive damages totaling $2.6 million based on D's conscious disregard for the rights and safety of others in dumping its toxic wastes at the landfill after 1977. The Court of Appeal reversed the awards for medical monitoring costs, as well as a post-judgment order directing D to pay costs and interest, but otherwise affirmed the judgment. The court reversed the awards for medical monitoring costs because Ps failed to establish that cancer was reasonably certain to occur, and did not address the challenge to the amount of those awards. The court affirmed the amount of the compensatory damages award and found the punitive damage award proper. D appealed.