|
The tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) is a controversial cause of action, which is available in nearly all U.S. states but is severely constrained and limited in the majority of them. The underlying concept is that one has a legal duty to use reasonable care to avoid causing emotional distress to another individual. If one fails in this duty and unreasonably causes emotional distress to another person, that actor will be liable for monetary damages to the injured individual. The tort is to be contrasted with intentional infliction of emotional distress in that there is no need to prove intent to inflict distress. That is, an accidental infliction, if negligent, is sufficient to support a cause of action. ==History== NIED began to develop in the late nineteenth century, but only in a very limited form, in the sense that plaintiffs could recover for consequential emotional distress as a component of damages when a defendant negligently inflicted physical harm upon them. By 1908, most industrial U.S. states had adopted the "physical impact" form of NIED. However, NIED started developing into its more mature and more controversial form in the mid-20th century, as the new machines of the Second Industrial Revolution flooded the legal system with all kinds of previously unimaginable complex factual scenarios. Courts began to allow plaintiffs to recover for emotional distress resulting from negligent physical injuries to not only themselves, but other persons with whom they had a special relationship, like a relative. The first step, then, was to remove the requirement of physical injury to the actual plaintiff while keeping the requirement of physical injury to ''someone.'' In the 1968 landmark decision of ''Dillon v. Legg'', the Supreme Court of California was the first court to allow recovery for emotional distress aloneeven in the absence of any physical injury to the plaintiffin the particular situation where the plaintiff simply witnessed the death of a close relative at a distance, and was not within the "zone of danger" where the relative was killed.〔See ''Dillon v. Legg'', (68 Cal. 2d 728 ) (1968).〕 A 2007 statistical study commissioned by the Court found that ''Dillon'' was the most persuasive decision published by the Court between 1940 and 2005; ''Dillon'' has been favorably cited and followed by at least twenty reported out-of-state appellate decisions, more than any other California appellate decision.〔Jake Dear and Edward W. Jessen, ''" Followed Rates" and Leading State Cases, 1940-2005'', (41 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 683, 694 )(2007).〕 The next step after ''Dillon'' was to make optional the element of another person (so that the injury could be to ''anything'' where it would be reasonably foreseeable that such injury would cause some person emotional distress). The first such case was ''Rodrigues v. State'',〔52 Haw. 156, 472 P.2d 509 (1970).〕 in which the Supreme Court of Hawaii held that plaintiffs could recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress as a result of negligently caused flood damage to their home. This is generally considered to be the true birth of NIED as a separate tort. Twelve years after ''Dillon'', California expanded NIED again, by holding that a relative could recover even where the underlying physical injury was ''de minimis'' (unnecessary medications and medical tests) if the outcome was foreseeable (the breakup of the plaintiffs' marriage as a result of the defendants' negligent and incorrect diagnosis of a sexually transmitted disease).〔See ''Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals'', (27 Cal. 3d 916 ) (1980).〕 In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court for the first time recognized NIED as part of federal common law, by holding that railroad workers could pursue NIED claims against their employers under the Federal Employers Liability Act.〔''Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Gottshall'', .〕 The Court recognized only the pre-''Dillon'' form of NIED, though, in that the plaintiff had to be within a zone of danger to recover in the absence of physical injury. In 1999, Hawaii took NIED even further by expressly holding that "damages may be based solely upon serious emotional distress, even absent proof of a predicate physical injury."〔''Roes v. FHP, Inc.'', (91 Haw. 470, 985 P.2d 661 ) (1999).〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「negligent infliction of emotional distress」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|