Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress: Where Are We Now?

In Florida, if you want to sue someone for causing you emotional distress, you need to have also been physically injured by their actions. This is called the “impact rule.” However, there are some exceptions to this rule, such as for defamation, invasion of privacy, and wrongful birth cases. There is also a special rule for people who witness a loved one being injured due to someone else’s negligence. This rule says that you can sue for emotional distress if you were physically injured because of the emotional trauma of seeing your loved one get hurt. This rule is called the “relative bystander test.” The Supreme Court changed the rules for when someone can sue for emotional distress without physical harm. In one case, a woman died of shock after seeing her daughter killed in a car accident, and the court said her family can sue for emotional distress. Now, people can sue for emotional distress if they see a loved one hurt or killed, even if they don’t get physically hurt themselves. The threshold test for a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress includes three factors: being at the scene of the accident, witnessing the accident, and having a close relationship with the victim. Each case is evaluated individually. In the case of Reynolds v. State Farm, the court ruled that witnessing an accident and suffering emotional distress was not enough to claim damages if there was no physical injury. The court also refused to expand the doctrine to cases where the claimant was startled by something in her food, unless there was some ingestion of the contaminated food. In Florida, you need physical injury along with emotional distress to sue for negligence. In one case, a man couldn’t sue because he didn’t have physical injuries from a defective car part that killed his mom. In another case, a man died from a heart attack during a break-in but couldn’t sue because his fear and stress didn’t count as a “physical impact.” In 1989, a patient was wrongly told they had HIV by doctors at Humana Hospital. They suffered emotionally and physically as a result. They tried to sue for emotional distress, but the court said they couldn’t unless they could prove they were physically harmed by the misdiagnosis. The court made an exception only if the misdiagnosis led to invasive medical treatment or harmful medication. So, the impact rule, which says you can only sue for emotional distress if there’s physical harm, was reaffirmed. In a recent court case, the court reaffirmed its position on requiring a clear “physical injury” for claims of emotional distress. However, they also widened the requirement by considering the time interval between the emotional trauma and physical symptoms as just one factor in proving causation. In this case, the court allowed the family of the victim of an explosion to seek compensation for their emotional distress, as the daughter experienced physical symptoms like insomnia, depression, and eventually difficulty breathing, which started nine months after the explosion. The court recognized that if physical symptoms continue to worsen over time, it’s less likely that the claims are fraudulent. The Meek decision relaxed the rules for suing for emotional distress after an accident. It said that you don’t have to see or hear the accident happen to sue for emotional distress. You can sue if you directly saw or experienced some of the events of the accident or its immediate aftermath. The court also outlined the elements needed to sue for emotional distress, including suffering a physical injury, being involved in the event that caused the injury, and having a close personal relationship with the person who was directly injured.

There are some exceptions to the rules for suing for emotional distress. For example, in cases where the damages are mostly emotional, like defamation or invasion of privacy, the impact rule doesn’t apply. In wrongful birth cases, where a child is born with genetic defects due to a doctor’s negligence, the court has allowed parents to sue for mental anguish without requiring a physical injury. In a case where a father sued a doctor for the stillbirth of his child, the court had to consider whether the father could sue for emotional damages. This shows that the rules about suing for emotional distress are still being figured out. While there is a general rule about needing physical harm, exceptions can be made in certain cases. Courts are careful about these cases to make sure they are not being taken advantage of. In the case of National Car Rental Systems, Inc. v. Bostic, the court made a strong public policy for allowing someone to recover damages for the emotional distress they suffer from witnessing a loved one’s injury or death, even if they were also injured in the same accident. This decision was made because the person’s emotional injuries were linked to their own physical injury, which left them unable to help their loved one. The court also considered previous cases that allowed people to recover damages for mental suffering in cases of negligent defamation and witnessing a family member’s injury or death. Ira Leesfield is a lawyer who has experience and leadership within the legal community. He has received help from others in writing this article, and it is being shared by a section of lawyers. Their goal is to uphold the principles of duty and service to the public, improve the justice system, and advance the study of law.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress-where-are-we-now/