I am confused about the "Impact Rule" & "Emotional Damages". Can you help?

Answer 1

THE IMPACT RULE IN TORTS

RULE STATEMENT/NEGLIGENT INFLICTION/MINUTE IMPACT/ZONE OF DANGER/BYSTANDER EXCEPTION [JUST FAMILY OR STRANGERS TOO?]/OTHER ISSUES/PUBLIC POLICY & JUDICIAL EFFICIENCY

*Minority or Majority Treatment (?)

*Applies only to Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (?)

*Does not Apply to Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (?)

*Impact by the smallest thing imaginable (?)

*Bystander Rule- Exception to Minority Treatment (?)

*Bedrock Public Policy and Judicial Efficiency (?)

*Spotting Issues worthy of Legal Analysis

PRIMARY AUTHORITY: Cornel Legal Information Institute at: law.cornell.edu/wex/zone_of_danger_rule

PRIMARY CASE: Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Gottshall, 512 U.S. 532, 548 (1994)

=======================================================================

*Applies only when a case is based on Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress.

*Does not apply to Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (such as when a creditor finally convinces a spouse to hand the phone to a debtor husband by lying and saying he (creditor) needs to talk with the debtor because the debtor’s mother is in a hospital, not expected to live, and the creditor needs to give the debtor directions to the hospital).

*An atom impacting the Plaintiff is enough to satisfy the Impact Rule. At least one case has said a sound wave (composed of molecules of moving air) is enough.

*The Impact Rule is a minority rule (states that are not keen on the reality of mental disorders and the medical need for psychiatrists are the most likely to apply the Impact Rule. Think Alabama vs. California).

*Juries may assess the credibility of a Plaintiff seeking emotional damages by thinking that it is much more likely that the Plaintiff suffered emotional distress if he was also impacted. This is a public policy and judicial efficiency consideration- strictly applying the Impact Rule to reduce the chance that the Plaintiff will perjure himself when claiming emotional damages.

*Bystander/Zone of Danger: a midpoint between strict application of the minority Rule and no recognition of the Rule. If a bystander, in the zone of danger, was the subject of the impact the Plaintiff may have feared that he, too, could have been injured and the “direct impact to Plaintiff” element will not apply.

Issue Spotting (questions deserving of further analysis):

(1) Does the “Impact” refer to the thing that impacted the Plaintiff or the physical symptoms that the Plaintiff manifests as a result of personal injury? Is there any difference?

(2) Bystander Rule: Is this an exception solely because the Plaintiff thinks that he might have been injured OR is it enough that the Plaintiff was emotionally distressed because he saw the bystander get hit?

(3) Compare and contrast: How does the Bystander/Zone of Danger exception differ, if at all, if the Bystander is a child or a close relative of the Plaintiff ?

(4) Discuss why the Impact Rule is a “legal fiction”.

(5) What is the purpose of the Impact Rule if a molecule of air impacting the Plaintiff is enough to satisfy the Rule? [form over substance]

(6) Why doesn’t the Impact Rule apply to Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress? After all, the focus is whether there was emotional distress rather than what caused the distress.

(7) Is a Claim for Relief (Cause of Action) for negligent infliction of emotional distress a “stand-alone” claim or must there always be a “Count 2” alleging personal injury?