Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Flashcards
Falzone v. Busch
New No-Impact Rule
• F: P watched husband get hit by D’s negligently driven car, extreme fear, becomes ill afterwards
• Overturns old standard requiring physical impact, says that physical injuries can follow fright
• Requires 4 Factors
1) P must be in zone of danger
2) Must be closeness of relationship between P and decedent
3) Must have physical manifestations of emotional distress
4) Emotional harm must be real and severe
• In order to avoid floodgates – require medical testimony
• Requirement of impact essentially gone today
Metro-North v. Buckley
Fear of Contracting Disease Case (Failed)
• F: asbestos exposure for three years at job, P hasn’t yet developed disease, but has intense fear of developing cancer; had no expert testimony on his emotional distress
• H: cannot recover for emotional distress unless and until symptoms of disease are manifest
• No “physical impact,” not threatened with immediate personal harm, no ‘zone of danger’ for catastrophic event here
• Policy argument: Need to limit recovery to those w/ the actual disease (prioritization) since there are limited funds for recovery.
• Ginsburg dissent – says that the exposure to asbestos does constitute “physical impact.” However, here P failed to show real emotional distress, no evidence
Potter v. Firestone
Fear of Contracting Disease Case (Succeeded)
• F: D dumps toxic wastes into landfill, exposes P to carcinogens over prolonged period; P does not yet have disease
• H: damages for fear of cancer can recover if: P can show D had duty to P, P is exposed to toxic substance which threatens cancer, and reliable medical evidence shows that it is more likely than not that P will develop cancer in the future
• Can also look to “oppression, fraud, or malice” – state standard for punitive damages – if established, then P just needs to show that their fear is “serious, genuine, and reasonable”
Gammon v. Osteopathic Hospital of Maine
Bystander Case
• F: P’s father died at D hospital, receives bag of personal effects, bag actually contains severed leg of another patient from pathology; P has nightmares and paranoia, which did improve over time
• H: P can recover for severe emotional distress even though he improved b/c gross negligence, the resulting emotional distress is highly foreseeable, involved close family member of P
o “exceptional vulnerability of family of recent decedents…highly probable that emotional distress will result from mishandling the body”
o Court draws the line at family members for cadaver cases
• Here, jury question; should not have granted summary judgment for D
Johnson v. Jamaica Hospital
Bystander Case
• F: P’s baby abducted from D’s hospital; baby returned four months later; Parents sue for emotional distress
• No evidence of emotional distress
• H: No cause of action here – says D hospital has no direct duty to the parents of hospitalized children.
• Child will have its own claim down the road, so judge less likely to allow recovery in this case
Portee v. Jaffee
Bystander Case/Dillon Factors
• F: P, mother, watches son die in elevator accident for several hours, caused by D’s negligence; P is depressed and suicidal afterwards
• H: P can recover, case here is very rare and very scarring clear PTSD
• Dillon Test: 1) physical proximity to the incident; 2) deep, intimate familial ties; 3) Witnessing the incident
• Portee adds severity
• Sets factors (building on Dillon) to determine if emotional injury is compensable b/c of foreseeability:
1. Death or serious injury of another caused by D negligence
2. Marital or intimate familial relationship with injured/killed person
3. Observation of the death or injury at the scene (contemporaneous)
4. Resulting severe emotional distress
• Factors limit liability – “only the most profound emotional interests should receive vindication for their negligent injury”
• Would’ve been no recovery under Falzone rule
