Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
Supreme Court of California
863 P.2d 795 (1993)
- Written by Dan Lake, JD
Facts
Firestone (defendant) only disposed of its toxic substances in “Class I” landfills, which were authorized to accept hazardous waste. Due to increased costs, Firestone changed this policy and began disposing of its toxic waste in “Class II” landfills, which prohibited hazardous substances because of the risk of groundwater contamination. Groundwater near these Class II landfills became contaminated by carcinogens. The Potters (plaintiffs) ingested this water and brought a negligent infliction of emotional distress against Firestone. The Potters did not exhibit any present physical injuries, but claimed that their fear of developing cancer in the future was actionable. Despite being unable to prove that they were more than likely to develop cancer, the Potters received a large damage award from the jury. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment and Firestone appealed to the Supreme Court of California.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Baxter, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 834,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
