Heiner v. Moretuzzo

Ohio Supreme Court
73 Ohio St. 3d 80 (1995)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A claim for negligent infliction of serious emotional distress is not recognized in Ohio when the plaintiff's distress is caused by the fear of a nonexistent physical peril. Recovery for this tort requires that the plaintiff either was a bystander to a dangerous accident or was in fear of actual physical consequences to their own person from a real, existing danger.

Facts:

Appellant received medical services from appellees, which included being tested for HIV.
Appellees negligently informed the appellant that she was HIV positive.
As a direct result of this misdiagnosis, the appellant suffered serious emotional distress.
It was later determined that the appellant was, in fact, HIV negative.
At no point was the appellant in any actual physical peril from the HIV virus.

Procedural Posture:

The appellant filed a lawsuit against the appellees in an Ohio trial court, alleging negligent infliction of serious emotional distress.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the appellees (defendants).
The appellant (plaintiff) appealed the trial court's decision to the intermediate Ohio Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court, siding with the appellees.
The appellant then appealed that decision to the Supreme Court of Ohio.

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 Ohio law permit a cause of action for negligent infliction of serious emotional distress when the defendant's alleged negligence caused the plaintiff to fear a physical peril that did not actually exist?

Opinions:

Majority - Douglas, J.

No. Ohio law does not recognize a claim for negligent infliction of serious emotional distress where the distress is caused by the plaintiff's fear of a nonexistent physical peril. The court's precedents, such as Schultz and Paugh, which expanded the NIED tort, all involved plaintiffs who witnessed, experienced, or appreciated a real and existing physical danger, such as a dangerous accident. In this case, the appellant was never actually HIV positive, so her fear, while genuine and debilitating, was based on a peril that never existed. The court holds that limiting recovery to situations involving cognizance of a real danger is a reasonable restriction on an otherwise potentially boundless cause of action and declines to create a special exception for medical misdiagnosis cases.

Dissenting - Resnick, J.

Yes. A plaintiff should be able to state a claim for negligent infliction of serious emotional distress even when the feared peril was nonexistent, as long as traditional tort principles are met. The dissent argued that the majority's creation of a new, blanket "real danger" requirement is unnecessary. It contended that existing limitations from cases like Paugh—requiring that the emotional distress be serious and foreseeable—combined with the standard negligence elements of duty, breach, causation, and damages, are sufficient to prevent boundless liability. Because the appellant alleged specific acts of negligence in both the testing procedure and the manner in which the results were communicated, the case should have been remanded for a jury to decide the facts.

Analysis:

This decision significantly curtails the expansion of the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) in Ohio by establishing a firm "actual peril" requirement. It creates a clear distinction between emotional harm stemming from misinformation about a non-existent threat and harm arising from actual, dangerous events like accidents. The ruling solidifies the boundary of NIED, preventing it from extending into areas like medical misdiagnosis where the underlying physical condition feared by the plaintiff never actually existed, thereby limiting potential liability for professionals in such fields. This precedent requires future NIED plaintiffs to demonstrate that their emotional distress arose from confronting a real, not just a reasonably perceived, physical danger.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Heiner v. Moretuzzo (1995)

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