Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress under Torts Law
❖ What Is Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress?
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED) is a tort claim that allows a plaintiff to recover emotional or psychological harm caused by the defendant’s negligent conduct, even in the absence of physical injury. It’s distinct from Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED), where the conduct must be outrageous and intentional.
NIED has been controversial and limited by courts due to the risk of frivolous claims, difficulties in proving emotional harm, and fear of opening the floodgates of litigation.
❖ Core Elements of NIED
Although the specifics vary by jurisdiction, generally a plaintiff must prove:
The defendant was negligent (owed a duty and breached it);
The plaintiff suffered emotional distress;
The defendant’s negligence was the proximate cause of the emotional distress;
The emotional distress was serious (not trivial or transitory);
The plaintiff meets jurisdictional tests, like zone of danger or bystander rule, depending on the case type.
❖ Two Major Categories of NIED
1. Direct Victim Claims
The plaintiff was directly involved in the negligent act.
The emotional distress was a foreseeable result of the negligence.
No need to witness injury to another person.
2. Bystander Claims
The plaintiff witnesses injury to a close relative caused by the defendant’s negligence.
Courts often impose additional limits (see below).
❖ Tests Developed by Courts to Limit NIED
A. Zone of Danger Test
Plaintiff must have been in the “zone of physical danger”, meaning they were at risk of physical harm, even if no injury occurred.
Emotional distress must result from the fear of imminent physical injury to oneself.
✅ Recognized in many jurisdictions for direct victim claims.
B. Bystander Test (Dillon v. Legg Test)
Developed in Dillon v. Legg, 68 Cal.2d 728 (1968)
The court allowed a mother to recover for emotional distress after witnessing her child’s death in a car accident caused by the defendant.
The court considered:
Whether plaintiff was near the scene of the accident;
Whether the shock resulted from direct emotional impact from observing the event;
Whether plaintiff and victim were closely related.
✅ Used for bystander claims but with limits.
❖ Key Case Law on NIED
1. Dillon v. Legg, 68 Cal.2d 728 (1968)
Facts: Mother witnessed her child being killed by a negligent driver. She wasn’t in the zone of danger.
Holding: The court permitted recovery, focusing on foreseeability and the emotional shock.
Significance: Created the bystander theory and a flexible, foreseeability-based approach to NIED.
2. Thing v. La Chusa, 48 Cal.3d 644 (1989)
Facts: A mother arrived at the scene after her son had already been struck by a car and sued for emotional distress.
Holding: The court limited Dillon by requiring that the plaintiff be:
Present at the scene of the injury;
Aware it is causing injury;
A close relative of the victim.
Significance: Created a strict three-part test, narrowing NIED bystander claims.
3. Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Gottshall, 512 U.S. 532 (1994)
Facts: Railroad worker sued for emotional distress under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act.
Holding: The Supreme Court adopted the zone of danger test for emotional distress under FELA.
Significance: Reinforced zone of danger as a national standard for certain NIED claims.
4. Gammon v. Osteopathic Hospital, 534 A.2d 1282 (Me. 1987)
Facts: A man received a bag from a funeral home that mistakenly contained a severed leg.
Holding: The court held that emotional distress damages were recoverable without physical harm because the conduct was particularly egregious and the distress foreseeable.
Significance: Illustrates direct victim NIED where no physical danger is present.
❖ Special Considerations
▸ No Physical Injury Required?
Many courts allow NIED claims without physical injury, but some still require physical symptoms of distress (e.g., insomnia, nausea).
▸ Limitations
Fear of “floodgates” has led to tight judicial control.
Courts often require objective evidence of severe distress.
No recovery for general sadness, grief, or upset unless it reaches a threshold of seriousness.
❖ Examples of Where NIED May Apply
A mother witnesses her child being struck by a vehicle (bystander claim).
A worker narrowly avoids being crushed by equipment and suffers PTSD (zone of danger).
A person receives incorrect results of a terminal illness and suffers mental trauma (direct victim).
A patient finds a foreign object in their body post-surgery, causing psychological harm (direct victim).
❖ Summary Table
| Type of NIED Claim | Requirements |
|---|---|
| Direct Victim | Negligent conduct, serious emotional distress, foreseeability |
| Zone of Danger | Plaintiff was in danger of physical harm, suffered fear-based emotional harm |
| Bystander | Present at scene, contemporaneous perception, close relation |
❖ Conclusion
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED) is a narrow and carefully limited tort under U.S. law. While courts recognize the validity of emotional harm, they impose strict standards to prevent speculative or trivial claims. Key doctrines such as the Zone of Danger and Bystander Rule (from Dillon and limited by Thing) shape how and when emotional distress may be compensable.
RELATED Blog
0 comments