Payton v. Abbott Labs
Decision Date | 22 June 1982 |
Citation | 437 N.E.2d 171,386 Mass. 540 |
Parties | Brenda PAYTON et al. 1 v. ABBOTT LABS et al. 2 |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Marshall Simonds, Boston (David W. Rosenberg, Robert G. Bone, Kenneth A. Cohen, Joan Milstein, Mary Morrissey, Sullivan & Joseph J. Leghorn, Boston, with him), for defendants.
Before HENNESSEY, C. J., and WILKINS, LIACOS, ABRAMS, NOLAN, LYNCH and O'CONNOR, JJ.LYNCH, Justice.
This case comes before the court on certification from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts of four principal and several subsidiary questions involving Massachusetts tort law.SeeS.J.C. Rule 1:03, § 1, as amended, --- Mass. ---(1981).
The plaintiffs in the civil action in which these questions are certified seek redress for injuries allegedly caused by the prescription drug diethylstilbestrol (DES).They brought suit in the Federal District Court in April, 1976.In July, 1979, a judge of the Federal District Court conditionally certified the plaintiff class under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(4)(A) to permit resolution of thirteen specific class-wide issues.Payton v. Abbott Labs, 83 F.R.D. 382, 386(D.Mass.1979).Several of these issues are factual; the four questions here certified involve issues of Massachusetts law which the judge believed "may be determinative of various aspects of this case and as to which it appears ... that there is no controlling precedent" in the decisions of this court.
The questions are presented by the judge in the context of a motion to dismiss, based upon the plaintiffs' allegations.The judge summarized those allegations as follows:
If the plaintiffs prevail, and the defendants' liability is established, there must be individual trials for members of the plaintiff class on the issue of damages and perhaps other issues as well.
"Does Massachusetts recognize a right of action for emotional distress and anxiety caused by the negligence of a defendant, in the absence of any evidence of physical harm, where such emotional stress and anxiety are the result of an increased statistical likelihood [that]the plaintiff will suffer serious disease in the future?"We answer, No.
We note initially that neither the issue of negligence nor that of causation is before us.The certified question assumes both that the defendants were negligent, and that their negligence caused the plaintiffs' emotional distress.
No Massachusetts case has yet concluded that a plaintiff who alleges that she was a direct victim of a defendant's negligent conduct, but who does not allege that she has suffered resulting physical harm, can recover for emotional distress.In the absence of a specific factual context, the court has declined to decide this issue.3This court has held that a parent who was not within the zone of physical danger created by the defendant's negligence may recover for substantial physical injuries sustained as a result of emotional distress, resulting from injuries negligently inflicted on her child.Dziokonski v. Babineau, 375 Mass. 555, 568, 380 N.E.2d 1295(1978).Here, however, the plaintiffs are assumed to be direct victims without physical injuries, since the certified question assumes that the plaintiffs were threatened with physical harm by the defendants' negligent conduct.We must decide whether this distinction should affect the result in this case.
Both common law and policy considerations lead us to answer certified question one in the negative.There is ample support in the common law of this country for a negative answer.Jurisdictions allowing recovery for emotional distress without proof of physical harm 4 in negligence cases are clearly in the minority.5The most common justification for denying recovery for emotional distress in negligence cases absent physical harm is that that rule is necessary to prevent fraud and vexatious lawsuits.Those seeking to apply a more liberal rule argue that a jury is capable of distinguishing real from feigned injuries and that, therefore, the matter should be left to the jury.This response has appeal because in general it is for the jury, and not for an appellate court, to determine which injuries are real and which are contrived.
The task of determining whether a plaintiff has suffered purely emotional distress, however, does not fall conveniently into the traditional categories separating the responsibilities of the judge from those of the jury.A plaintiff may be genuinely, though wrongly, convinced that a defendant's negligence has caused her to suffer emotional distress.If such a plaintiff's testimony is believed, and there is no requirement of objective corroboration of the emotional distress alleged, a defendant would be held liable unjustifiably.It is in recognition of the tricks that the human mind can play upon itself, as much as of the deception that people are capable of perpetrating upon one another, that we continue to rely upon traditional indicia of harm to provide objective evidence that a plaintiff actually has suffered emotional distress.
Although this court has allowed recovery for emotional distress absent physical harm, it has done so only where the defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous, and was either intentional or reckless.SeeSimon v. Solomon, 385 Mass. 91, 95, 431 N.E.2d 556(1982);Agis v. Howard Johnson Co., 371 Mass. 140, 355 N.E.2d 315(1976);George v. Jordan Marsh Co., 359 Mass. 244, 268 N.E.2d 915(1971).The outrageous and reckless or intentional nature of a defendant's conduct permits a jury to infer that the...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Ball v. Joy Mfg. Co., Civ. A. No. 1:87-0268
...claim of damages for the intentional or negligent infliction of their physical injuries, i.e., exposure. See Payton v. Abbott Labs, 386 Mass. 540, 437 N.E.2d 171 (1982). The question the Court must resolve therefore is whether they have suffered an actionable physical injury upon which they......
-
Limone v. U.S., Civ. Action No. 02cv10890-NG.
...to endure it. Tetrault v. Mahoney, Hawkes & Goldings, 425 Mass. 456, 681 N.E.2d 1189, 1197 (1997) (quoting Payton v. Abbott Labs, 386 Mass. 540, 437 N.E.2d 171, 180 (1982)). Plaintiffs have met these standards. Framing innocent men for a capital crime, prolonging their suffering for decades......
-
Armstrong v. Lamy
...symptomatology; and (5) that a reasonable person would have suffered emotional distress under like circumstances. Payton v. Abbott Labs, 386 Mass. 540, 437 N.E.2d 171 (1982). Having failed to satisfy element (1), plaintiffs cannot successfully maintain a claim against any of the Lamy Family......
-
Echavarria v. Roach
...and (5) that a reasonable person would have suffered emotional distress under the circumstances of the case." Payton v. Abbott Labs, 386 Mass. 540, 437 N.E.2d 171, 181 (1982). "As with any sort of negligence, negligence in the context of an emotional distress claim requires that the defenda......
-
Trick Or Treat? The Ghost Of Pelvic Mesh Haunts Medical Device Litigation
...like the aforementioned states, has applied although the precedent had been made in prescription drug cases. See Payton v. Abbott Labs, 437 N.E.2d 171, 189 (Mass. 1982) (adopting "policy" of comment k); Burnham v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc., 348 F. Supp.3d 109, 112 (D. Mass. 2018); Lareau v. ......
-
CHAPTER 10 TOXIC TORTS PROPERTY DAMAGE AND PERSONAL INJURY: EMERGING THEORIES AND RELATION TO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
...A.2d 502 (1989), allocatur denied sub nom. Houston v. H.J. Tanner, Inc., 520 Pa. 575, 549 A.2d 136 (1988); Payton v. Abbott Laboratories, 386 Mass. 540, 437 N.E.2d 171, 180 (1982); DeStories, 744 P.2d at 710; Ayers, 461 A.2d at 189; see also Towns v. Anderson, 195 Colo. 517, 579 P.2d 1163 (......
-
Chapter 7 The Preemption Issue Government Contractor Defense Market Share Liability and other Developing Issues
...Rptr. 2d 550, 863 P.2d 795 (1993). [1542] Cases that have not allowed recovery for fear of future harm include Payton v. Abbott Labs., 386 Mass. 540, 437 N.E.2d 171 (1982); Cases allowing recovery include Sorenson v. Raymark Indus., Inc., 51 Wash. App. 954, 756 P.2d 740 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988......
-
CHAPTER 2 THE STATE FRAMEWORK: STATUTES AND REGULATIONS AFFECTING TRANSACTIONS
...F.2d 1139 (5th Cir. 1987); Wisniewski v. Johns-Manville Corp., 812 F.2d 81 (3d Cir. 1987); Payton v. Abbott Laboratories, 368 Mass. 540, 437 N.E.2d 171 (1982). [188] Ayers v. Jackson Township, 189 N.J. Super. 561, 461 A.2d 184, 189 (L. Div. 1983), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 493 A.2d 1314......
-
Combatting fear of future injury and medical monitoring claims.
...527 (1984). (3.) 152 N.E.2d 249, 253 (N.Y. 1958). (4.) 759 F.2d 271, 274 (3d Cir. 1985). (5.) 481 So.2d 517, 528-29 (Fla.App. 1985). (6.) 437 N.E.2d 171, 180-81 (Mass. 1982). (7.) 684 F.Supp. 847 (M.D. Pa. 1988). (8.) 580 F.2d 72, 76 (3d Cir. 1978). (9.) 639 S.W.2d 431, 434 (Tenn. 1982). (1......