theory that they were not victims” of negligence (Huggins “direct ∆’s – CA 1993) However, parent who suffered minor physical injuries in car crash could recover from negligent driver-∆ for separate emotional injuries resulting from finding 2 year old dead in car seat since limited class of cases and less administrative difficulty to distinguish two types of distress resulting from different harms (Jarrett MO 2008) – Damage To Property Majority Rule: no recovery for emotional distress caused by loss of property artists sued for property damage & emotional distress when Π city’s trash truck crashed into their house & damaged house, 2 cars and much of their artwork. Deterrence was served by damages for economic loss & additional tax dollars not warranted for ED damages (Lubner CA 1996) – Note: harm can be seen as (harm is to property, not to “indirect” person) or b/c no third-party injuries are involved “direct” Minority: exception for special circumstances could recover for emotional distress resulting from flood of Π’s house they had built with their own hands if they could show that a reasonable man, normally constituted, would be unable to adequately cope with the mental stress engendered by the circumstances of the case (Rodrigues HI 1970) – Has been extended to ED when negligent contractor caused $400K damages to house” even when hadn’t lived in it “dream πs (Erlich v. Menezes CA 1999) – Pets Some courts view pets as and refuse to use bystander “property” analysis to allow recovery for witnessing injury to pets However, several states have enacted statutes to allow owners to recover for distress resulting from abuse or neglect of their pets Negligent Interference with Consortium Loss of consortium = separate action from NIED claim Historically, very sexist basis of recovery for husband’s loss of use of wife’s “services” and because married women could not sue in their own names—however, when women’s rights developed and their loss of earnings began to be excluded from husband’s recoveries, now being seen as their own, wife’s right of consortium developed & is now recognized by almost all states as a cause of action for both spouses Some courts have extended to: Nonphysical injuries to spouse: wife able to recover for loss of consortium after minister revealed to others info about husband he had learned during confidential counseling sessions (Barnes AZ 1998) – Loss of Parental Consortium:
theory that they were not “direct victims” of ∆’s negligence (Huggins – CA 1993) However, parent who suffered minor physical injuries in car crash could recover from negligent driver-∆ for separate emotional injuries resulting from finding 2 year old dead in car seat since limited class of cases and less administrative difficulty to distinguish two types of distress resulting from different harms (Jarrett – MO 2008) Damage To Property Majority Rule: no recovery for emotional distress caused by loss of property Π artists sued for property damage & emotional distress when city’s trash truck crashed into their house & damaged house, 2 cars and much of their artwork. Deterrence was served by damages for economic loss & additional tax dollars not warranted for ED damages (Lubner – CA 1996) Note: harm can be seen as “indirect” (harm is to property, not to person) or “direct” b/c no third-party injuries are involved Minority: exception for special circumstances Π’s could recover for emotional distress resulting from flood of house they had built with their own hands if they could show that a reasonable man, normally constituted, would be unable to adequately cope with the mental stress engendered by the circumstances of the case (Rodrigues – HI 1970) Has been extended to ED when negligent contractor caused $400K damages to “dream house” even when πs hadn’t lived in it (Erlich v. Menezes – CA 1999) Pets Some courts view pets as “property” and refuse to use bystander analysis to allow recovery for witnessing injury to pets However, several states have enacted statutes to allow owners to recover for distress resulting from abuse or neglect of their pets Negligent Interference with Consortium Loss of consortium = separate action from NIED claim Historically, very sexist basis of recovery for husband’s loss of use of wife’s “services” and because married women could not sue in their own names—however, when women’s rights developed and their loss of earnings began to be excluded from husband’s recoveries, now being seen as their own, wife’s right of consortium developed & is now recognized by almost all states as a cause of action for both spouses Some courts have extended to: Nonphysical injuries to spouse: wife able to recover for loss of consortium after minister revealed to others info about husband he had learned during confidential counseling sessions (Barnes – AZ 1998) Loss of Parental Consortium:
Torts-Kim-2015-1.docx