Johnson v. State of New York
372 N.Y.S.2d 638, 77 A.L.R. 3d 494, 37 N.Y.2d 378 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A claimant to whom a direct duty is owed may recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress, even in the absence of physical impact or injury, when the circumstances surrounding the negligent act provide a 'guarantee of genuineness' for the resulting emotional harm.
Facts:
- Fleeter Thorpe's mother, Emma Johnson, was a patient at the Hudson River State Hospital.
- On August 6, 1970, another patient, who was also named Emma Johnson, died at the hospital.
- The hospital negligently identified the deceased and sent a telegram to the living Emma Johnson's family, including her sister Nellie Johnson, incorrectly informing them of her death.
- Nellie Johnson notified her niece, Fleeter Thorpe, of her mother's supposed death.
- Thorpe incurred funeral expenses, engaged an undertaker, and arranged for a wake.
- At the wake, while viewing the body in the casket, Thorpe realized the deceased was not her mother.
- Upon confirming the hospital's mistake, Thorpe became hysterical and subsequently suffered from anxiety neurosis, recurrent nightmares, and other objective manifestations of severe emotional distress.
Procedural Posture:
- Claimant Fleeter Thorpe filed a claim against the State of New York in the Court of Claims for emotional harm and funeral expenses.
- The Court of Claims, acting as the trial court, awarded Thorpe $7,500 for both funeral expenses and emotional harm.
- The State, as appellant, appealed the decision to the Appellate Division, and Thorpe, as appellee, cross-appealed.
- The Appellate Division, an intermediate appellate court, modified the award, limiting Thorpe's recovery to her pecuniary losses of $1,658.47 and disallowing recovery for emotional harm.
- Thorpe, as appellant, then appealed this modification to the New York Court of Appeals, 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 claimant have a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress when a hospital breaches its direct duty to the claimant by falsely reporting the death of her mother, even if the claimant suffers no contemporaneous physical injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Breitel
Yes. A person may recover for emotional harm sustained as a direct result of negligent misinformation from a party that owes them a direct duty of care. The court distinguished this case from bystander liability cases, such as Tobin v. Grossman, because the hospital's duty to provide accurate information about a patient's death was owed directly to Thorpe as the next of kin. The hospital's negligent act—sending the false death notice—was the direct cause of her injury. The court reasoned that while recovery for purely emotional harm is typically restricted, exceptions exist where there is an 'especial likelihood of genuine and serious mental distress, arising from the special circumstances, which serves as a guarantee that the claim is not spurious.' The court analogized this situation to the recognized exceptions for negligent mishandling of a corpse and negligent transmission of death-related telegraphs, finding that a false notification of a parent's death falls into this category of cases where the genuineness of the emotional harm is highly probable. Thus, because a direct duty was breached under circumstances guaranteeing the authenticity of the resultant emotional harm, Thorpe could recover for her emotional distress.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the scope of liability for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) in New York by moving beyond the traditional physical impact or zone-of-danger requirements. The court established a 'direct duty' exception, allowing recovery for purely emotional harm when the defendant's negligence directly injures the plaintiff in a context that inherently guarantees the genuineness of the distress. This shifts the focus from the type of injury (physical vs. emotional) to the relationship between the parties and the nature of the negligent act. The ruling created a new pathway for NIED claims in specific, compelling factual scenarios, such as the negligent transmission of information, where severe emotional harm is a foreseeable consequence of the breach of a direct duty.
