Falzone v. Busch

The Supreme Court of New Jersey
45 N.J. 559, 214 A.2d 12 (1965)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A plaintiff may recover for substantial bodily injury or sickness resulting from a reasonable fear of immediate personal injury caused by a defendant's negligence, even in the absence of a physical impact.

Facts:

Plaintiff Mabel Falzone was seated in her husband's lawfully parked automobile.
Her husband, Charles Falzone, was standing in an adjacent field.
A negligently driven automobile, operated by the defendant, veered across the highway.
The defendant's car headed directly in the direction of Mabel Falzone's vehicle, coming close enough to put her in fear for her safety.
As a direct result of the fear she experienced, Mabel Falzone became ill and required medical attention.
There was no physical impact on Mabel Falzone or the vehicle she was in.
The defendant's car did strike and injure her husband, Charles.

Procedural Posture:

The plaintiffs, Charles and Mabel Falzone, filed a complaint against the defendant in the Law Division, the state's trial court.
The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the counts related to Mabel Falzone's injuries, arguing that New Jersey law required a physical impact for recovery.
The Law Division granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding itself bound by the existing impact rule.
The plaintiffs appealed this decision.
The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted certification to hear the appeal directly, bypassing the intermediate Appellate Division.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

May a plaintiff recover for substantial bodily injury or sickness resulting from negligently induced fear for her own safety, where the plaintiff was placed in the zone of immediate danger but there was no physical impact?

Opinions:

Majority - Proctor, J.

Yes. Where negligence causes fright from a reasonable fear of immediate personal injury, which results in substantial bodily injury or sickness, the injured person may recover damages even without a direct physical impact. The court explicitly overrules the prior 'impact rule' established in Ward v. West Jersey & Seashore R. R. Co. The court dismantles the three justifications for the impact rule: 1) Proximate cause: The court finds that the connection between fright and physical injury is a matter of medical evidence, not law, and modern medicine recognizes this causal link. 2) Lack of precedent: The court states that the common law must evolve and not be frozen by a lack of prior cases on an issue. 3) Public policy: The court rejects the fear of fraudulent claims and a flood of litigation, arguing that courts have sufficient tools to weed out dishonest claims and that the difficulty of proof should not bar a meritorious action. The court aligns New Jersey with the great majority of jurisdictions that have abandoned the arbitrary impact rule.

Analysis:

This case is a landmark decision in New Jersey tort law that abolishes the long-standing and widely criticized 'impact rule' for claims of negligent infliction of emotional distress. By adopting the 'zone of danger' test, the court significantly expanded the scope of liability for negligence, allowing recovery for foreseeable emotional harm that manifests physically. This decision shifts the legal inquiry from the arbitrary question of whether a physical touching occurred to the more substantive questions of the reasonableness of the plaintiff's fear and the causal link between that fear and a substantial physical injury. The ruling brings New Jersey law in line with the modern trend and the Restatement of Torts, impacting how future cases involving emotional trauma without physical impact are litigated.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Falzone v. Busch (1965)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature