The rules governing negligent infliction of emotional distress claims differ significantly from state to state. The predominant rule is the bystander recovery rule, which permits recovery by persons who are not physically threatened by the defendant’s negligent conduct but who suffer emotional distress from witnessing injury to a third person. In bystander recovery jurisdictions, the required degree of proximity of the plaintiff to the accident scene, how the plaintiff hears about the accident, the plaintiff’s relationship to the person actually injured in the accident, and the proof required to establish severe emotional distress vary, sometimes significantly, from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The purpose of this Article is to review the ...
On the surface, Derousse v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance. Co. may be a relatively minor ma...
Compensation of Emotional Distress in Montana: Distinctions Between Bystanders and Direct Victim
A review of Ohio cases reveals that Ohio law declares there cannot be recovery for mental distress u...
The rules governing negligent infliction of emotional distress claims differ significantly from stat...
Recovery for the negligent infliction of emotional distress has always been a hazy and constantly ch...
In Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, the California Supreme Court recognized that the interest ...
This article examines negligent infliction of emotional distress, one of the most controversial and ...
This Article examines the right to recover damages for emotional distress in Minnesota, with emphasi...
This Comment examines the route taken by the Supreme Court of Washington to afford plaintiffs their ...
Bass v. Nooney Co. established negligent infliction of emotional distress as an independent tort in ...
In Bass v. Nooney Co., the Supreme Court of Missouri abandoned the rule that a defendant is not liab...
The United States Supreme Court held that negligent infliction of emotional distress is a cognizable...
This Note analyzes D\u27Ambrosio v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. and the evol...
Recovery for emotional trauma has progressed slowly in the century since Lord Wensleydale uttered th...
California courts, long leaders in the development of tort law, recently have decided a series of ca...
On the surface, Derousse v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance. Co. may be a relatively minor ma...
Compensation of Emotional Distress in Montana: Distinctions Between Bystanders and Direct Victim
A review of Ohio cases reveals that Ohio law declares there cannot be recovery for mental distress u...
The rules governing negligent infliction of emotional distress claims differ significantly from stat...
Recovery for the negligent infliction of emotional distress has always been a hazy and constantly ch...
In Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, the California Supreme Court recognized that the interest ...
This article examines negligent infliction of emotional distress, one of the most controversial and ...
This Article examines the right to recover damages for emotional distress in Minnesota, with emphasi...
This Comment examines the route taken by the Supreme Court of Washington to afford plaintiffs their ...
Bass v. Nooney Co. established negligent infliction of emotional distress as an independent tort in ...
In Bass v. Nooney Co., the Supreme Court of Missouri abandoned the rule that a defendant is not liab...
The United States Supreme Court held that negligent infliction of emotional distress is a cognizable...
This Note analyzes D\u27Ambrosio v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. and the evol...
Recovery for emotional trauma has progressed slowly in the century since Lord Wensleydale uttered th...
California courts, long leaders in the development of tort law, recently have decided a series of ca...
On the surface, Derousse v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance. Co. may be a relatively minor ma...
Compensation of Emotional Distress in Montana: Distinctions Between Bystanders and Direct Victim
A review of Ohio cases reveals that Ohio law declares there cannot be recovery for mental distress u...