## Facts

- Roger Mauro, a state hospital employee, was exposed to asbestos at work.
- Medical testing showed pleural thickening and diaphragm calcification consistent with asbestos exposure and indicated increased risk of lung cancer.
- Mauro experienced significant distress and obtained periodic pulmonary evaluations to monitor for cancer.
- Mauro and his wife sued multiple asbestos-product manufacturers seeking damages for present asbestos-related injury, emotional distress and fear of cancer, future medical surveillance, and enhanced risk of future cancer.
- Mauro’s expert opined that Mauro had an increased risk of cancer but could not state it was probable Mauro would develop cancer.
- Statistical proof offered to quantify cancer likelihood was excluded, leaving no record evidence that cancer was more likely than not.

## Issues

1. Whether a plaintiff with present asbestos-related injury may recover damages for enhanced risk of future cancer when the evidence shows only an increased, unquantified risk rather than a probable future disease.
2. Whether New Jersey permits prospective damages for a future injury that is merely possible, as opposed to reasonably probable.

## Decision

- The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for defendants on the enhanced-risk claim.
- The court held that damages for enhanced risk of future disease are not recoverable absent proof the future disease is reasonably probable to occur.
- Because Mauro’s evidence did not establish that developing cancer was probable, the trial court properly withheld the enhanced-risk claim from the jury.
- The court left intact recovery avenues for present physical injury, emotional distress (including fear of cancer), and reasonable costs of future medical surveillance.

## Legal Principles

- Prospective tort damages for future injury are recoverable only when the future injury is shown to be reasonably probable (more likely than not), not merely possible.
- In toxic-tort cases, proof of increased risk—without proof that disease occurrence is probable—does not support an award for enhanced-risk damages.
- Emotional distress from fear of developing disease and reasonable medical-monitoring expenses may be compensable as present harms even when enhanced-risk damages are unavailable.
- Policy concerns supporting the probability requirement include preventing speculative awards, avoiding over- or under-compensation, and reducing the risk of duplicative recovery if disease later manifests.

## Conclusion

The court refused to recognize enhanced-risk damages based on unquantified increased cancer risk and reaffirmed that New Jersey permits prospective damages only when the future injury is reasonably probable, while allowing compensation for present injury, fear-based emotional distress, and medical surveillance costs.


Mauro v. Raymark Indus., Inc., 561 A.2d 257 (N.J. 1989)