Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (ED) – Torts

• Courts were very skeptical, then they start to see maybe it can be real
• Horse and buggy runs you down your injured –> Sure you can recover
• Horse and buggy swerves at the last second and brushes your arm –> slight contact will give you a cause of action
• Horse and buggy swerves at the last second and almost kills you –> ~1950 dont even need slight impact you can probably recover if you have side efects, nightmares etc

• Mother who comes on the scene
• Sees condition/danger/injury of her child
• Bystander cause of action?
• If youre in the zone of danger you can have a cause of action (nearby almost hit by car, istead her kid is hit)
• Well now shes across the street SO she is NOT in the ‘zone of danger’
  • With Gammon Rule you can argure that the emotioanl distress is forseeable so she CAN RECOVER UNDER GAMMON RULE
• We will see CA loosens up the bystander rules
  • Foreseeability had the potential to DRASTically change the law…IT STARTED TO…but then it didnt

Despite the foreseeability dictum, there will still be RULES…FORESEEABILITY alone WILL NOT BE ENOUGH

More v American Airlines 304-305

• Roberts v Williamson 2003 Texas court dissagreed rejected 6-3 a cause of action for an injuered (but not dead) child
  • Dissent argued there should be no distinction between death and disabling injury
• Lester v Sayles upheld lost consortium from injured child for $1.86mil to a Mother

In Borer v American Airlines 1977

• the loss was recoverable for mothers losses
  • Reason to only allow the mother to recover
    • inadequacy of money to alleviate children’s pain
    • difficulty of measuring damages
    • danger of imposing extended disproportionate liabliltiy
    • These factors almost mirror Traynors dissent in the Seffert case

Ferriter v Daniel Oconnells rejected this view in Massachusats 1980

• Court reviewed and rejected Borer v AmAirlines and held that the children do have a cause of action for the loss of parental society if they can prove they were dependent both economically and emotionally.

Jacob v Brickenhoff

• “sound public policy counsels that a psych’s treatment of a troubled spouse should not be burdned by accountability to the other spouse”

Thing v Chusa

Reversing gears

1. Is P is closely related to injury victim (blood, marriage, relatives living in houshold, parents, siblings, children and granchildren)
2. P is present at the scene of injury at the time it occurs, AND is aware the event is causing the injury
3. P suffers serious ED greater than the disinterested witness

Dillon v. Legg (One of the most followed cases)

Dillon v. Legg was the first court in the country to abbondon old idealogy of ###

How would Dillon interpret Portee Facts??

Loss of Consortium – Husbands and wives usually have a casue of action for loss of spouse

Parents probably have a cause for loss of child

Child generally does not have cause for lost parent (CA does not give child a cause)

Telegram case (Husband is Dead) and the Leg case

Used to require physical manifestations

then needed slight impact

Then no contact needed just fear

Difficult cases are bystander cases

Mother suffers ED from injury to a proximate child/spouse

Most courts adopted zone of danger

She can recover for her own ED if she was in the zone of physical danger

Not really creating a new duty, the truck driver already owed a duty of care not to hurt her or her child

Legg case, two sisters walking, one was hit. the sister could recover because she was there. traditionally the mom couldnt because she wasnt there

The guideline is foreseeability, was the emotional distress foreseeable? near, far?

Water cooler electrocution and drowning

They define close relative by blood or marriage, live in family member

You have to be there when the accident occurs, you cant come right after

You have to be aware that the accident is occuring/causing harm