Mitchell v. Rochester Railway
45 N.E. 354 (1896)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff cannot recover damages for physical injuries sustained solely from fright or mental shock occasioned by another's negligence where there is no contemporaneous physical impact or immediate personal injury.
Facts:
- On April 1, 1891, the plaintiff was standing on a crosswalk, waiting to board one of the Rochester Railway Co.'s streetcars.
- While she was waiting, another of the defendant's horse-drawn cars approached her.
- The team of horses attached to the car veered toward the plaintiff.
- The horses stopped so close to the plaintiff that she was standing between their heads.
- The plaintiff was not physically touched or struck by the horses or the car.
- Due to the fright and excitement from the near collision, the plaintiff became unconscious.
- As a direct result of this fright, the plaintiff suffered a miscarriage and consequent illness.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued Rochester Railway Co. in a New York trial court.
- The trial court granted a nonsuit, dismissing the plaintiff's case.
- The plaintiff appealed to an intermediate appellate court (the General Term), which reversed the trial court's dismissal.
- The defendant, Rochester Railway Co., appealed the intermediate appellate court's decision to the New York Court of Appeals.
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 plaintiff have a cause of action to recover for physical injuries, such as a miscarriage, resulting solely from fright caused by a defendant's negligence, where there was no contemporaneous physical impact?
Opinions:
Majority - Martin, J.
No. A plaintiff cannot recover for injuries occasioned by fright where there was no immediate personal injury. The court reasons that if there is no recovery for "mere fright," it logically follows that there can be no recovery for the physical consequences of that fright, regardless of their severity. Allowing such claims would be contrary to public policy, as it would lead to a flood of speculative and easily feigned litigation. Furthermore, the plaintiff's injuries were not the proximate result of the defendant's negligence; they were the consequence of an unusual combination of circumstances that could not have been reasonably anticipated and were thus too remote to justify recovery.
Analysis:
This decision establishes the "impact rule" in New York tort law, a significant and historically restrictive standard for claims of negligent infliction of emotional distress. By requiring a physical touching or impact, the court sought to prevent fraudulent claims and limit liability for unforeseeable consequences. This ruling created a bright-line rule that, while later criticized and abandoned by many jurisdictions in favor of the "zone of danger" test, served as a foundational principle for decades in determining the actionability of claims based on pure emotional harm.
Unlock the full brief for Mitchell v. Rochester Railway