Armstrong v. Paoli Memorial Hospital
633 A.2d 605 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In Pennsylvania, a plaintiff cannot recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress unless the plaintiff personally observed a traumatic injury to a close family member or the defendant owed the plaintiff a pre-existing contractual or fiduciary duty.
Facts:
- Paoli Memorial Hospital received a critically injured, unconscious patient named Thomas Armstrong.
- Following hospital policy to notify next-of-kin, an employee looked up a telephone number for Thomas Armstrong in Chester and called Dawn Armstrong.
- The hospital informed Dawn Armstrong that her husband had been in an accident and requested she come to the hospital.
- At the hospital, a neurosurgeon showed Armstrong X-rays of a man with a crushed cranium, but she was not permitted to see the patient.
- After more than an hour, Armstrong's sister saw the patient's driver's license and discovered he was Thomas H. Armstrong, not Dawn's husband, Thomas J. Armstrong.
- Upon learning the injured man was not her husband, Armstrong had an immediate, severe physical reaction and subsequently suffered from depression, nightmares, and insomnia requiring psychological counseling.
Procedural Posture:
- The Armstrongs filed suit against Paoli Memorial Hospital in a state trial court, alleging negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The trial judge dismissed the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress at the close of testimony.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of Dawn Armstrong on the negligence claim, awarding her $1,000 in damages.
- In response to post-trial motions, the trial court ordered a new trial on the issue of damages, deeming the $1,000 award inadequate, and denied the hospital's motion for judgment non obstante veredicto (j.n.o.v.).
- Paoli Memorial Hospital (appellant) appealed the trial court's order to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, an intermediate appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Pennsylvania law permit a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress where a hospital mistakenly informs a person that their spouse has been critically injured, when the plaintiff was not a bystander to any accident and had no pre-existing contractual or fiduciary relationship with the hospital?
Opinions:
Majority - Cirillo, J.
No. Pennsylvania law does not recognize an independent tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress outside of two specific factual scenarios: bystander liability and the breach of a pre-existing special duty. The court traced the evolution of the tort in Pennsylvania, from the restrictive 'impact rule' to the 'zone of danger' test, and finally to the three-part bystander test established in Sinn v. Burd. To recover as a bystander, a plaintiff must be located near the scene of an accident, suffer a shock from the sensory and contemporaneous observance of the accident, and be closely related to the victim. Dawn Armstrong fails this test because she was not a bystander to any accident involving a loved one. The court then analyzed the second basis for recovery, finding it exists only where there is a pre-existing contractual or fiduciary duty between the parties, such as an employer-employee relationship. Because no such relationship existed between Armstrong and Paoli Memorial Hospital, she has no grounds for recovery. The court explicitly refused to create a broad, independent cause of action for NIED, citing the risk of opening the 'floodgates of litigation' for every emotional slight and noting the 'perilous' factual position of Armstrong suing over information that foreseeably would cause relief, not distress.
Analysis:
This decision firmly limits the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress in Pennsylvania to two narrow, established categories. By rejecting a broader, foreseeability-based standard, the court prevents a significant expansion of tort liability and provides a clear, restrictive framework for future cases. The ruling solidifies that emotional distress alone, even when severe and negligently caused, is not compensable unless the plaintiff fits squarely within the bystander test from Sinn v. Burd or can demonstrate a breach of a pre-existing special relationship. This case serves as a strong precedent against recognizing new, independent claims for NIED, prioritizing judicial policy concerns about excessive litigation over compensating for genuine emotional harm in novel situations.
Unlock the full brief for Armstrong v. Paoli Memorial Hospital