Hinton ex rel. Hinton v. Monsanto Co.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Alabama answered a certified question concerning whether a plaintiff exposed to hazardous contamination, but alleging no past or present physical injury, may pursue a medical-monitoring claim. The court held that Alabama law requires a manifest, present injury for tort recovery and does not recognize a standalone cause of action for medical monitoring in these circumstances.

Holdings

1. Alabama law does not recognize a cause of action for medical monitoring when the plaintiff alleges exposure to a hazardous substance but no past or present physical injury or illness.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Alabama law recognizes a distinct cause of action for medical monitoring when a plaintiff alleges exposure to hazardous contamination but no past or present physical injury or illness.
2. Whether the alleged need for future medical monitoring constitutes a legally cognizable present injury or damage under Alabama tort law.

Disposition

other