Dissent points out that in cases where immunity has been lifted there havent

Dissent points out that in cases where immunity has

This preview shows page 9 - 12 out of 37 pages.

5) Federal Tort Claims Act: waives govt. immunity for torts. Limited scope for claims though.
IV. Duty Requirement – Non-physical Harm A) 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 not protect 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 danger 2. P manifests some physical harm as a result of emotional distress Both of these are now relaxed in extreme situations 2. 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 today Two-pronged test: 1. P needs to be at risk of physical conduct

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture