CONCLUSION:
1) The client, Jeni Jones makes a persuasive legal argument for negligent infliction of emotional distress against the defendant 2) The court in the controlling Bowman decision, held that the cause of the plaintiff’s fright was the negligent act or omission of the defendants in permitting the truck to get out of control or be driven so as to run into the of the plaintiff. 3) The facts supporting the driver’s duty and subsequent breach of this duty are present here. 4) The court in Bowman also held that there was no reason to deny the plaintiff a right to recover in this action, because of the fact the injury might have arisen from fear for the safety of the plaintiff’s children rather than for his own. 5) Based on this legal precedent,
1) The client, Jeni Jones makes a persuasive legal argument for negligent infliction of emotional distress against the defendant 2) The court in the controlling Bowman decision, held that the cause of the plaintiff’s fright was the negligent act or omission of the defendants in permitting the truck to get out of control or be driven so as to run into the of the plaintiff. 3) The facts supporting the driver’s duty and subsequent breach of this duty are present here. 4) The court in Bowman also held that there was no reason to deny the plaintiff a right to recover in this action, because of the fact the injury might have arisen from fear for the safety of the plaintiff’s children rather than for his own. 5) Based on this legal precedent,