5) Federal Tort Claims Act: waives govt. immunity for torts. Limited scope for claims though.
IV. Duty Requirement – Non-physical HarmA) NIED.1) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress: if the actor’s conduct is negligent and violates a duty of care to protect another from fright or other emotional disturbance, the fact that the harm results solely from internal operations does notprotect the actor from liability.2) Rule: don’t need to physically harm someone to cause them distress. But they do need to show physical manifestations of the emotional harm.3) Policy: why allow for recovery? Fairness and deterrence.Fear is fraud and that it’s tough to place non-arbitrary limits on recovery.B) Direct Emotional Harm: Old standard was that there had to be some physical contact. Today, we utilize the “zone of danger” test, or even forseeability. Under normal circumstances, P must show the harm manifested itself in some way.Two part test:1. P was in zone of danger2. P manifests some physical harm as a result of emotional distressBoth of these are now relaxed in extreme situations2. Zone of Danger Test:• “zone of danger test”: allows recovery for emotional injury by “those plaintiffs who sustain a physical impact”as a result of a D’s negligence, or who are placed in immediate risk of physical harm by that conduct.” majority view todayTwo-pronged test:1. P needs to be at risk of physical conduct