Can a plaintiff recover damages for increased risk of future illness and medical monitoring costs resulting from toxic exposure at a government-operated landfill under New Jersey's sovereign immunity statute?

Jackson Township, New Jersey operated a landfill from 1972 to 1978 in violation of state regulations, resulting in groundwater contamination with at least 36 toxic chemicals, including known carcinogens. The contamination affected the well water of 339 township residents, who were exposed to the polluted water for up to six years and left without running water for 20 months.

The affected residents filed a lawsuit against Jackson Township seeking damages for emotional distress, diminished quality of life, and future medical surveillance costs. A jury determined that the township's conduct was 'palpably unreasonable' and awarded the plaintiffs a total of $15.8 million in damages. This sum included $2 million for emotional distress, $5.4 million for quality of life impairment, and $8.2 million for future medical surveillance.

The plaintiffs initially brought suit in the Superior Court of New Jersey. A jury trial was held, resulting in a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs. Following the trial court decision, the defendants appealed to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division partially affirmed and partially reversed the lower court's ruling, upholding the award for quality of life damages but overturning the awards for emotional distress and medical surveillance. Subsequently, the case was further appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which granted certification to review the Appellate Division's decision.

(Stein, J.)

Yes. Plaintiffs can recover damages for medical monitoring costs resulting from toxic exposure at a government-operated landfill under New Jersey's sovereign immunity statute, but cannot recover for increased risk of future illness. The Tort Claims Act does not bar recovery for medical surveillance damages, as these are based on the quantifiable need for medical testing and monitoring due to toxic exposure. Such damages represent necessary medical expenses rather than speculative future harm. The Act's purpose of compensating victims for actual injuries is served by allowing recovery for these concrete, presently-incurred costs. However, damages for unquantified enhanced risk of future disease are barred as too speculative under the Act's limitations on liability. The Act aims to balance compensating victims against protecting public entities from excessive liability. Allowing recovery for medical monitoring strikes this balance by addressing a present, quantifiable harm without opening the door to speculative claims. Future medical surveillance damages should be awarded through a court-supervised fund rather than as lump sums to ensure proper use of public funds and ongoing oversight. This approach aligns with the Act's goal of carefully managing government liability while still providing just compensation to toxic exposure victims. The distinction between recoverable medical monitoring costs and barred future illness risk damages reflects the need for concrete, non-speculative harm in toxic tort cases against public entities under the Tort Claims Act.

Concurrence/Dissent (Handler, J.) The court should recognize claims for unquantified enhanced risk of disease. Difficulty in quantifying damages should not prevent compensation for real injuries. The limitation of medical surveillance awards to a court-supervised fund in future cases is inappropriate. This approach fails to adequately address the full scope of harm suffered by victims and may set a problematic precedent for future toxic tort cases. The majority's decision unduly restricts the ability of courts to provide just compensation in complex environmental exposure cases.