Hough v. Meyer
2002 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 153, 55 Pa. D. & C.4th 473 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To state a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress in Pennsylvania, a plaintiff must allege facts satisfying one of three theories: the physical impact rule, the zone of danger rule, or the bystander rule. A complaint that fails to allege a direct physical impact, fear of immediate physical impact, or the contemporaneous witnessing of an injury to a close relative is legally insufficient.
Facts:
- Michael Arthur Meyer was operating a tractor-trailer for his employers, Schneider National Inc. and Schneider Specialized Carriers Inc.
- After getting lost, Meyer's truck allegedly suffered a brake system failure while traveling on State Route 711.
- Meyer then allegedly made a conscious decision to drive the tractor-trailer off the road and into the home owned by Nancy and Kenneth Hough.
- At the moment of collision, Nancy Hough was taking a bath and Kenneth Hough was in a separate room watching television.
- The crash tore off the front porch, destroyed a stone retaining wall, damaged the foundation, and sent glass flying throughout the home.
- As a result of the incident, the Houghs suffered severe emotional shock, anxiety, depression, and various physical health problems.
Procedural Posture:
- Nancy and Kenneth Hough filed a multi-count complaint against Michael Arthur Meyer and his employers in the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County, Pennsylvania, a state trial court.
- The complaint included claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).
- The defendants filed preliminary objections, which function as a motion to dismiss, arguing the complaint was legally insufficient to support the emotional distress claims.
- The defendants also objected to the plaintiffs' request for counsel fees.
- The Court of Common Pleas, as the court of first instance, heard oral arguments on the defendants' preliminary objections.
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 a complaint state a valid claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress when a vehicle crashes into the plaintiffs' home while they are inside, but the complaint does not allege a direct physical impact to their persons, that they feared an imminent physical impact, or that they witnessed a close relative being injured?
Opinions:
Majority - Warman, J.
No, the complaint does not state a valid claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress as currently pleaded. Pennsylvania law permits recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress only under the physical impact rule, the zone of danger rule, or the bystander rule, and the plaintiffs' allegations fail to satisfy any of these theories. The bystander rule does not apply because, while the plaintiffs were close relatives at the scene, they were in separate rooms and did not contemporaneously observe each other being injured. The zone of danger rule is inapplicable because the complaint contains no allegation that the plaintiffs were in personal danger of a physical impact and actually feared such an impact. Finally, the physical impact rule is not met because the complaint, while describing the massive impact to their home, fails to allege any physical impact, however slight, to the plaintiffs' persons. Therefore, the NIED claims must be dismissed, though plaintiffs are granted leave to amend their complaint.
Analysis:
This case illustrates the strict and somewhat unsettled pleading requirements for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) in Pennsylvania. It confirms that even in a highly traumatic event, a plaintiff must fit their factual allegations squarely into one of the three established, narrow categories for recovery. The decision highlights that the 'impact' in the physical impact rule must be to the person, not just the surrounding property. The court's ruling reinforces the importance of precise pleading, as the dismissal was based on the failure to allege specific facts (like being jostled), rather than an outright rejection of the possibility of recovery under these circumstances, as shown by granting leave to amend.
