Essay on Health Alternatives Aids Task Force

1271 Words Nov 22nd, 2016 6 Pages
In Pennsylvania, a plaintiff claiming negligent infliction of emotional distress must establish one of these four situations: “1) that the defendant had a contractual or fiduciary duty; 2) plaintiff suffered a physical impact; 3) plaintiff was in a “zone of danger” and at risk of an immediate physical injury; or 4) plaintiff had a contemporaneous perception of tortious injury to a close relative.” Doe v. Phila. Cmty. Health Alternatives AIDS Task Force, 754 A.2d 25, 27 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000). The first element does not apply to our client because there was no fiduciary or contractual duty relationship. Secondly, it could be argued that Nordlund suffered a physical impact because after Sumner’s accident, Nordlund could not eat, could not sleep because of nightmares, and could not get out of bed, resulting in her indefinite leave from her job. R. 4. Thirdly, Nordlund was not in the “zone of danger” and at risk of an immediate injury. The fourth situation applies to our client because it defines when it is foreseeable for a bystander to recover. In order for Nordlund to recover as a bystander, she must establish these three elements: “1) whether plaintiff was located near the scene of the accident; 2) whether the shock resulted from a direct emotional impact upon plaintiff from the sensory and contemporaneous observance of the accident, as contrasted with learning of the accident from others after its occurrence; and 3) whether plaintiff and the victim were closely related.”…

Related Documents