Harms and Recovery Flashcards
True or False: In general a person cannot recover for emotional only harm under common law.
True, but with some exceptions:
1. negligent handling of a body part or corpse
2. negligent transmission the death of a loved one
3. Loss of consortium
True or False: If a physical injury occurs, a plaintiff can also recover for emotional and economic losses under traditional common law
Yes, but only if there was some amount of damages first given to the physical harm
The emotional harm is considered “parasitic”
Falzone v. Busch
Major topical rule
A plaintiff may recover for substantial bodily injury or sickness resulting from negligently induced fright, even if the plaintiff did not suffer a direct physical impact.
A vast majority rule
What is negligent transmission of the death of a loved one
Communicating that a loved one had died when **that is incorrect **
Exception to traditional common law bans on emotional harm recovery
What is negligent midhandling of a corpse or body part
Exception to traditional common law bans on emotional harm recovery
What is loss of consortium
Exception to traditional common law bans on emotional harm recovery
Originally only recoverable by husbands but now for both
refers to the loss of emotional and sexual services of a partner
recovery is directly related to the “quality” of the relationship before
Ward v. West Jersey & Seashore R.R. Co
Major topical rule
Reasons for denying emotion only recovery:
- The doctrine of non-liability rests upon the principle that a person is legally responsible for only the natural and proximate result of his negligent act
- early cases has no common law precedent so it must be that no liability exists, aka no one cares about this topic
- it creates public policy concerns
- cases are inherantly speculative
Overturned by Falzone
Emotional Recovery
Malibu Boats LLC v. Batchelder
The court refused to extend Falzone and asserted that to show negligent infliction of emotional distress, a physical harm must occur
Georgia is a minority rule because of this
Emotional Harm
Philibert v. Kluser
Brought Oregon into the majority rule saying that the physical injury requirement unfairly barred plaintiffs with genuine claims from recovery
Emotional Harm
Quill v. Trans World Airlines Inc.
Upheld recovery for a passenger in a plain that plunged 34,000 feet in an “uncontrolled tailspin” before pilots regained control
Emotional Harm
Test for Emotional Harm
- Zone of danger
- Reasonable fear for safety
- Suffers sever emotional harm w/ physical manifestation
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.
A defendant owes a duty of care to a plaintiff only if the plaintiff is in the zone of reasonably foreseeable harm resulting from the defendant’s actions.
Negligence is not a tort unless it results from the commission of a wrong, and to be wrong it must violate a right.
Cardozo finds that there was never a duty to her so there cannot be negligence
Wagner v. International Railway Co.
A defendant who negligently imperils and causes injury to a person may also be liable for injuries suffered by a third party in attempting to rescue that person because “danger invites rescue.”
Moore v. Shah
A son was not entitled to recover after medical malpractice left his father in need of a kidney which he donated
Ryan v. New York Central Railroad
If a fire is negligently started in a building, the destruction of that building is to be expected, but others are not.
This is a special N.Y. rule known as the fire rule.
