Palko is being treated by a physician for asbestosis, an abnormal chest condition that was caused by his on-the-job handling of materials containing asbestos. His physician has told him that the asbestosis is not presently cancerous, but that it considerably increases the risk that he will ultimately develop lung cancer. Palko brought an action for damages, based on strict product liability, against the supplier of the materials that contained asbestos. The court in this jurisdiction has ruled against recovery of damages for negligently inflicted emotional distress in the absence of physical harm. If the supplier is subject to liability to Palko for damages, should the award include damage for emotional distress he has suffered arising from his knowledge of the increased risk that he will develop lung cancer? 
No, because Palko's emotional distress did not cause his physical condition.  No, unless the court in this jurisdiction recognizes a cause of action for an increased risk of cancer.  Yes, because the supplier of a dangerous product is strictly liable for the harm it causes.  Yes, because Palko's emotional distress arises from bodily harm caused by his exposure to asbestos. 
Question: Palko is being treated by a physician for asbestosis, an abnormal chest condition that was caused by his on-the-job handling of materials containing asbestos. His physician has told him that the asbestosis is not presently cancerous, but that it considerably increases the risk that he will ultimately develop lung cancer. Palko brought an action for damages, based on strict product liability, against the supplier of the materials that contained asbestos. The court in this jurisdiction has ruled against recovery of damages for negligently inflicted emotional distress in the absence of physical harm. If the supplier is subject to liability to Palko for damages, should the award include damage for emotional distress he has suffered arising from his knowledge of the increased risk that he will develop lung cancer? 
A. No, because Palko's emotional distress did not cause his physical condition. 
B. No, unless the court in this jurisdiction recognizes a cause of action for an increased risk of cancer. 
C. Yes, because the supplier of a dangerous product is strictly liable for the harm it causes. 
D. Yes, because Palko's emotional distress arises from bodily harm caused by his exposure to asbestos. 
Answer: