What is negligent infliction of emotional distress?

Summary

This video discusses the legal concept of negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED), a type of negligence tort claim. It explores three main approaches: the 'zone of danger' rule, where a plaintiff can sue if they were in danger and suffered emotional distress; the 'Dillon rule,' which allows close relatives who witnessed the accident to sue; and the 'impact rule,' where emotional damages can be claimed if there was direct contact between the plaintiff and the defendant. Each approach varies by state, reflecting differing legal perspectives on emotional distress claims.

Takeaways

• 💼 NIED refers to 'Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress,' a type of negligence tort claim where a plaintiff alleges emotional harm caused by a defendant’s carelessness.
• 🚶‍♂️ In scenarios like Peter crossing the street and getting hit by a car, the bystander Penny might have a claim even though she wasn’t physically harmed.
• ⚖️ Whether Penny can sue varies by state, with different legal approaches to NIED claims.
• 📏 One approach is the 'Zone of Danger' rule, where a plaintiff can sue if they were close enough to the event to be in danger themselves and suffered emotional distress with physical symptoms.
• 🚗 Under the Zone of Danger rule, Penny could sue if she was almost hit by the car but avoided the accident and suffered emotional distress.
• 👩‍⚖️ Another approach, originating in California, is the 'Dillon rule,' where a plaintiff must be a close relative of the victim, be near the accident, and have witnessed it contemporaneously.
• 👨‍👩‍👧‍👦 Under the Dillon rule, Penny could sue if she were a close relative to Peter, even if she wasn’t in danger, but she witnessed the accident.
• 👊 A third approach is the 'Impact rule,' which requires some form of physical contact between the car and the plaintiff for them to sue for emotional damages.
• 📝 Different states adopt varying rules for NIED claims, leading to different legal outcomes depending on the jurisdiction.
• 🔍 The video encourages further exploration of NIED and other legal matters through the presenter’s website.

Q & A

What is 'Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress' (NIED)?

NIED refers to a negligence tort claim where a plaintiff alleges that a defendant carelessly caused them emotional harm, often without direct physical harm.

Can a bystander like Penny, who wasn't directly harmed, sue for emotional distress?

Whether a bystander like Penny can sue for emotional distress depends on the approach taken by the state, such as the 'Zone of Danger' rule, the 'Dillon rule', or the 'Impact rule'.

What is the 'Zone of Danger' rule in NIED cases?

Under the 'Zone of Danger' rule, a plaintiff can sue if they were close enough to the dangerous situation that they were at risk of physical harm and suffered severe emotional distress, with some form of physical manifestation.

Can Penny sue under the 'Zone of Danger' rule if she was crossing the street with Peter?

Yes, under the 'Zone of Danger' rule, Penny can likely sue if she was close enough to be in danger of being hit, suffered emotional distress, and had a physical manifestation of that distress.

What are the key factors of the 'Dillon rule'?

The 'Dillon rule' allows a plaintiff to sue if they are a close relative of the victim, were in close proximity to the event, and witnessed the accident contemporaneously.

Can Penny sue under the 'Dillon rule' if she witnessed the accident from the sidewalk?

Yes, under the 'Dillon rule', Penny can likely sue if she is a close relative of Peter (e.g., his sister, wife, or daughter), was near the accident, and witnessed it as it happened.

What is the 'Impact rule' in NIED cases?

Under the 'Impact rule', a plaintiff can only sue for emotional damages if there was some form of physical contact or impact between the plaintiff and the source of the harm (e.g., the car).

Can Penny sue under the 'Impact rule' if she was not physically touched by the car?

No, under the 'Impact rule', Penny would not be able to sue for emotional damages unless there was physical contact between her and the car.

Why is it controversial whether a bystander can sue for emotional distress?

It is controversial because different states apply different legal standards to bystander claims, with some requiring physical danger or impact, while others consider emotional harm sufficient under specific circumstances.

What physical evidence must a plaintiff provide to support an NIED claim under the 'Zone of Danger' rule?

Under the 'Zone of Danger' rule, the plaintiff must show not only emotional distress but also some form of physical manifestation of that distress, such as physical symptoms or medical conditions caused by the emotional trauma.