Emotional Harm

Question 1

Falzone v. Bush

Answer 1

[woman almost hit by car – Zone of Danger; Extending duty, Rejecting requirement of physical impact] P could recover for any substantial bodily injury or sickness proximately resulting from defendant’s negligence in operating automobile so close to plaintiff as to put her in fear for safety, despite lack of physical impact.

Question 2

Portee v. Jaffee

Answer 2

[boy died in elevator – Emotional Distress with Dillon Factors; Duty of care to bystander observing injury of family member] A cause of action for the negligent infliction of emotional distress may be maintained were the plaintiff witnesses the death or severe injury of a close relative at the scene of the accident caused by the defendant’s negligence. requires proof of the following elements:
(1) the death or serious physical injury of another caused by defendant’s negligence;
(2) a marital or intimate, familial relationship between plaintiff and the injured person;
(3) observation of the death or injury at the scene of the accident; and
(4) resulting severe emotional distress.

Question 3

Gammon v. Osteopathic Hospital

Answer 3

[Suprise severed leg - A defendant may be liable for any foreseeable emotional or psychic harms he negligently causes]

Question 4

Johnson v. Jamaica Hospital

Answer 4

[Child abducted from hospital - Parents cannot recover for emotional distress suffered as a result of injuries inflicted on a child because of a hospital’s negligence, if the parents are not within the zone of danger and do not witness their child’s serious physical injury or death] to permit recovery by the infant’s parents for emotional distress would be to invite open-ended liability for indirect emotional injury suffered by families in every instance where the very young, or very elderly, or incapacitated persons experience negligent care or treatment **Hospitals provide an essential service that we do not want to hinder by opening the floodgates of litigation.

Question 5

Dillon v. Legg

Answer 5

[Mother/daughter watch sister killed while crossing street] Abandons zone of danger rule for a foreseeability test, was the harm inflicted reasonably foreseeable as it was here?

Dillon Factors:
(1) Whether plaintiff was
located near the scene of the accident as contrasted with
one who was a distance away from it.
(2) Whether the
shock resulted from a direct emotional impact upon
plaintiff from the sensory and contemporaneous
observance of the accident, *741 as contrasted with
learning of the accident from others after its
occurrence.
(3) Whether plaintiff and the victim were
closely related

Question 6

Thing v. La Chusa