Johnson v. Jamaica Hospital
62 N.Y.2d 523, 478 N.Y.S.2d 838, 467 N.E.2d 502 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Parents may not recover damages for their own emotional distress resulting from a defendant's negligent care of their child, as a caretaker owes no direct duty to the parents to prevent such psychic injury. Recovery for indirect emotional distress is limited to plaintiffs who were within the 'zone of danger' and contemporaneously observed the injury to their immediate family member.
Facts:
- Cynthia Johnson and Percy Williams are the parents of a daughter, Kawana, born on June 8, 1981, at Jamaica Hospital.
- After Johnson was discharged, Kawana remained in the hospital's nursery for additional medical treatment.
- On June 16, 1981, the day the hospital had received two bomb threats, Johnson visited the nursery and discovered that Kawana was missing.
- Kawana had been abducted from the nursery.
- Approximately four and a half months later, police recovered Kawana and returned her to her parents.
Procedural Posture:
- Cynthia Johnson and Percy Williams sued Jamaica Hospital in the New York Supreme Court, Special Term (trial court) for their own emotional distress.
- Defendant Jamaica Hospital filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
- The Special Term denied the defendant's motion to dismiss.
- Defendant-appellant Jamaica Hospital appealed the denial to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's order, with a divided court.
- The Appellate Division granted the defendant-appellant leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals of New York (the state's highest 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 a hospital owe a direct duty to the parents of a newborn child to prevent emotional distress that results from the hospital's negligent failure to prevent the abduction of that child from its nursery?
Opinions:
Majority - Kaye, J.
No. A hospital does not owe a direct duty to parents to prevent emotional distress resulting from negligent injury to their child. The court held that plaintiffs' claims for emotional distress are not actionable because the direct injury—the abduction—was sustained by the infant, not the parents. The parents' injuries are indirect, and recovery for such 'psychic injuries' is permitted only under the narrow 'zone of danger' rule established in Bovsun v. Sanperi, which requires the plaintiff to be in immediate physical danger and contemporaneously observe the serious injury or death of a family member. The plaintiffs here did not meet that standard. The court rejected the argument that a direct duty arose from the contractual relationship or an in loco parentis status, reasoning that foreseeability of emotional harm alone does not create a legal duty. To recognize such a duty would invite boundless liability for indirect emotional injury in any case involving negligent care of a vulnerable person.
Dissenting - Meyer, J.
Yes. A hospital should be found to owe a direct duty to parents to protect their custodial rights, and a breach of that duty should allow recovery for emotional distress. The dissent argued that 'duty' is a policy determination, and the hospital, not the parents, should bear the burden of the parents' psychic injury. The injury to the parents was not merely consequential to the harm to the child; it was a direct infringement on their fundamental right to custody. The majority's fear of unlimited liability is unfounded because the class of potential plaintiffs is naturally limited to the parents, and recovery would require proof of a serious and verifiable emotional disturbance. The hospital assumed an obligation to return custody of the child to the parents, and its negligent failure to do so constituted a direct wrong to them.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforces the strict limitations on claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) in New York, particularly for bystander or indirect victims. By refusing to create a new direct duty owed to parents for the negligent care of their child, the court solidified the 'zone of danger' rule as the primary avenue for such recovery. The ruling prioritizes the judicial policy of preventing 'boundless liability' over compensating for foreseeable, and in this case severe, emotional harm. This precedent makes it exceptionally difficult for family members who are not physically present and endangered during an incident to recover for their emotional suffering, impacting future cases involving medical malpractice or negligent supervision where family members are the indirect victims.
Unlock the full brief for Johnson v. Jamaica Hospital