I) NEID A) Assuring Genuineness of Plaintiff’s Claim 1) Emotional Distress must be severe 2) “Parasitic damages” 3) Four Types (a) Impact Requirement (i) Physical Contact needed (b) Physical Consequences (i) Stuttering etc. (c) Invasion of a legally protected interest (i) Wrongful arrest (d) Nature of D’s conduct carries a special like hood of producing emotional distress (i) Delivering a death message 4) Scope of Liability (a) Two types (i) Foreseeability (i) Elements 1. Proximity to the accident 2. Contemporaneous observation of the harm 3. Relationship to the victim a. Not necessarily limited to relationships of marriage or blood b. Eskin v. Bartee i. Intimate relationships such as engaged parties or step-parents and step children will suffice. (ii) Some courts only see them as factors (iii) Some reject test (ii) Zone of Danger (i) Whether or not a threat of bodily harm to the P is likely 1. Whetham v. Bismarck Hospital a. A mother witnessed baby dropped but could not recover 2. Marlene F. v. Affiliated Psychiatric a. Mother could not recover NEID but could not recover when doctor sexually abused sons (b) No General Duty for NEID (i) Some courts say NEID can only be recovered in connection with a D’s breach of some other duty (i) Boyles v. Kerr 1. P could not recover for NEID for videotape of sex act but could for IIED 5) Loss of Consortium (a) Still an option for those who cannot prove NEID (b) Applies to unmarried cohabitants standing in a close familial relationship to the victim of an accident (i) Lozoya v. Sanchez (c) Can also sue with wrongful-death claims
(i) Although usually addressed through statute 6) Breach of Fiduciary Duty (a) A relationship of special trust and confidence (b) Another option besides NEID II) Alcohol-Related Injuries A) Common Law 1) NO LIABILITY B) Statute Dram-Shop Laws 1) Action against a business if the sale of alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person results in injury to a third party 2) Some apply to (a) non-vendors (b) commercial establishments (c) MOST DO NOT 3) Some allow (a) Injured recipient of alcohol to sue (i) Recipient’s own negligence come into play for (i) Total bar or partial bar (ii) EXCEPTION IS MINORS = (b) MOST DO NOT C) Judiciary Dram-Shop Laws 1) Vendors of intoxicants 2) One state imposes liability on (a) Vendors of controlled substances D) Sell of items not alcohol to intoxicants 1) Selling items like gas to visibly intoxicated person imposes liability (a) West v. East Tennessee Pioneer Oil Co. E) Social-Host Liability 1) Many courts reject imposing liability when intoxicant is adult 2) Judiciary tried (a) Kelly v. Gwinnell (b) State legislature rejected trying 3) Many states impose liability when intoxicant is minor that causes automobile accident F) Automobile alcohol liability 1) A person who lends a car to a drunkard may be held liable for negligent entrustment G) Security at alcohol related events 1) A person who does not hire adequate security at alcohol related events can be liable (a) Del Lago Partners v. Smith H) When employer takes control of intoxicated employee 1) Can be liable (a) Otis Engineering Corp. V. Clark
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 24 pages?