Consolidated Rail Corp v Gottshall 753 Witnesss action for negligent infliction

Consolidated rail corp v gottshall 753 witnesss

This preview shows page 13 - 14 out of 16 pages.

Consolidated Rail Corp v Gottshall (753) - Witness's action for negligent infliction of emotional distress against railroad was remanded under the common-law zone-of-danger test, which was consistent with the remedial goals and focus on physical perils under Federal Employers' Liability Act. Issue: May a plaintiff recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress where the plaintiff’s injury was genuine and foreseeable but where there was no infliction or risk of physical harm? Rule: Zone of danger test - requires a showing that the defendant’s negligence either caused the plaintiff to suffer a physical impact or placed the plaintiff in immediate risk of physical injury. Analysis: Waube v Warrington (778) - In an action for the death of a mother after a car struck her child, there was no liability for fright, negligently occasioned, because the child's mother was not in the zone of danger when her child was hit by the driver's car. Issue: Rule: Analysis: Outside the zone of danger. Dillon v Legg (781) - The court extended "zone of danger" doctrine in reversing dismissal of a mother's action to recover for emotional trauma caused by witnessing the death of her child struck by a car negligently driven by a motorist. Issue: May defendant be liable for emotional harm caused to the plaintiff due to his negligence? Rule: Damages will consider 3 factors: (No more zone of danger) 1. physical proximity 2. immediate observation 3. closeness of the relationship (parent, sibling, spouse) Analysis: The court reversed the judgment, holding that the "zone of danger" doctrine was improperly restricted to those exposed to physical injury. The court extended the doctrine to encompass those exposed to emotional injury. Ting v La Chusa (788) - Lacking personal injury, damages for emotional distress were recoverable only if the victim was closely related, plaintiff was present at the occurrence and, being aware of injury, suffered more than a disinterested witness. Issue: Can the petitioner sue and recover damages for emotional distress caused by an inflicted injury that the petitioner is not an eyewitness to? Rule: Damages for emotional distress recoverable only if: 1. close relationship; 2. present at the scene of the injury-producing event at the time it occurs and is then aware that it is causing injury to victim; and 3. suffers emotional distress beyond that of a disinterested observer. Compensatory Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd (513) - Ironworker was hit by piece of metal on his lip, which developed into cancer. Issue: May a defendant be held liable for damages in negligence where the victim’s type of injury was foreseeable but not its extent? Rule: A defendant may be held liable for damages in negligence where the victim’s type of injury was foreseeable—even if the extent of such injury was not. Analysis: Leech is liable for damages even though Smith’s cancer might not have been foreseeable. NOTES: Take your victim as you find him ( Vosburg v Putney ) Kenton v Hyatt Hotels Corp (521) - The original order was appropriate because the jury was entitled to consider the intangibles of the evidence of injured guest's past and future pain and suffering.
Image of page 13
Image of page 14

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 16 pages?

  • Spring '14
  • AnthonyJ.Sebok
  • Tort Law

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture