context: Some of the cases have 'also indicated that a medical monitoring cause of action may be subject to normal tort defenses such as assumption of risk and contributory negligence.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 6 Cal.4th 974, 974
citation_a.parenthetical: "when a defendant in a [toxic landfill] negligence action demonstrates that a plaintiffs smoking is negligent and that a portion of the plaintiffs fear of cancer is attributable to the smoking, comparative fault principles may be applied to reduce the amount of recovery for emotional distress damages based on such fear"
citation_a.sentence: See Donovan, 455 Mass, at 226 n. 11, 914 N.E.2d at 901 n. 11 (“[a] plaintiff[ smoker]’s claim would, of course, remain subject to all available affirmative defenses, such ' as contributory negligence”); Potter, 6 Cal.4th at 974, 25 Cal. Rptr.2d 550, 863 P.2d at 801 (“when a defendant in a [toxic landfill] negligence action demonstrates that a plaintiffs smoking is negligent and that a portion of the plaintiffs fear of cancer is attributable to the smoking, comparative fault principles may be applied to reduce the amount of recovery for emotional distress damages based on such fear”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 672 N.Y.S.2d 191, 191
citation_b.parenthetical: in a cancerphobia case involving a toxic landfill, a jury may properly consider the plain tiffs' "voluntary exposure to carcinogens, for example, by smoking"
citation_b.sentence: See also Dangler, 241 A.D.2d at 294, 672 N.Y.S.2d at 191 (in a cancerphobia case involving a toxic landfill, a jury may properly consider the plain tiffs’ “voluntary exposure to carcinogens, for example, by smoking”).