Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

Pronunciation: NEG-lih-jent in-FLIK-shun of ee-MOH-shun-ul dis-TRESS

Torts › Duty of Care

Definition

A tort claim for emotional distress caused by defendant's negligent conduct. The threshold question is whether defendant owed a duty to avoid causing emotional harm. MBE majority rule (direct claims): plaintiff must have been in the zone of physical danger and suffered physical manifestation of distress. Some jurisdictions still apply the older impact rule requiring actual physical contact. Bystander NIED (CA rule): Thing v. La Chusa (1989) is the controlling California authority, replacing Dillon v. Legg's flexible factors with three categorical requirements: (1) closely related to the victim, (2) present at the scene and aware injury is occurring, (3) suffers serious emotional distress beyond a disinterested witness. Distinguished from IIED, which requires extreme and outrageous conduct.

Related terms

• Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress — Extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causing severe emotional distress. Requires: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct, (2)…
• Damages — The fourth and final element of negligence, requiring proof that the plaintiff suffered actual harm or loss. Damages…
• Duty of Care — A legal obligation to exercise reasonable care to avoid causing harm to others. The duty of care is…
• Foreseeability — Central concept in both duty and proximate cause analysis, limiting liability to foreseeable consequences and foreseeable plaintiffs. Under…

Go deeper

3 worked examples, 6 exceptions, landmark cases, flashcards, issue spotting and the interactive mind map for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress are available with a free account.

Create a free account — the whole Torts subject is free.