Abstract
Causation remains an almost insurmountable bar to recovery for plaintiffs in toxic tort litigation. The Sterling decision, however, represents the resilient ability of the common law to adapt to changing technology. The emotional distress cause of action fashioned by the Sterling court circumvents the causation barrier and provides some minimal economic incentive for hazardous waste generators to prevent public exposure. The method of calculating damages developed in Sterling, on the other hand, departs from existing precedent without any articulated legal reasoning. In that respect, the damages portion of the Sterling decision incorrectly devised a remedy without appreciating its potential impact. Courts that address toxic tort emotional distress claims in the future should reject the Sterling framework and calculate damages for the period of the plaintiff's emotional distress, rather than the period of their exposure.
Recommended Citation
Christiansen, Erik A.
(1989)
"Sterling v. Velsicol Chemical Corp.: Emotional Distress Damages for the Duration of Toxic Exposure,"
Utah Law Review: Vol. 1989:
No.
3, Article 5.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol1989/iss3/5