Ramsey v. Beavers
931 S.W.2d 527, 1996 Tenn. LEXIS 617, 1996 WL 625401 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff may recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress after sensorily observing the serious injury or death of a close relative, even if the plaintiff was not within the physical 'zone of danger,' provided the defendant's negligence foreseeably caused the plaintiff's severe emotional injury.
Facts:
- Mitchell Ramsey and his mother were traveling in a car driven by his mother.
- His mother pulled into Ramsey's driveway and exited the vehicle to check the mailbox.
- Ramsey remained seated in the rear driver's side seat of the car.
- James Beavers was driving his vehicle on the adjacent highway when it left the roadway.
- Ramsey heard the tires of Beavers' vehicle in the gravel and looked just in time to witness the vehicle strike and kill his mother.
Procedural Posture:
- Mitchell Ramsey sued James Beavers in the trial court for negligent infliction of emotional distress.
- Beavers moved for summary judgment, arguing that Ramsey was not within the 'zone of danger' and therefore could not recover.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Beavers and dismissed the case.
- Ramsey (appellant) appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals, Eastern Division.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the 'zone of danger' rule.
- Ramsey (appellant) was granted an appeal to the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
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 who sensorily observes the serious injury or death of a close relative have a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, even if the plaintiff was not within the 'zone of danger' of physical harm?
Opinions:
Majority - White, Judge
Yes. A plaintiff can recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress from witnessing injury to a close relative if the emotional injury was a foreseeable result of the defendant's negligence. The court abandons the rigid 'zone of danger' test, which required a plaintiff to have been in immediate danger of physical harm, in favor of a general negligence approach. Under this new framework, liability is determined by foreseeability, which considers three key factors: (1) the plaintiff's proximity to the injury-producing event and their sensory and contemporaneous observance of it; (2) the seriousness of the injury to the third-party victim (it must be fatal or serious); and (3) the closeness of the relationship between the plaintiff and the victim. Furthermore, the plaintiff must prove through expert medical or scientific evidence that they suffered a 'serious' or 'severe' emotional injury, defined as one that a reasonable, normally constituted person would be unable to adequately cope with.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant departure from traditional Tennessee tort law by formally replacing the restrictive 'zone of danger' rule for bystander NIED claims with a modern foreseeability analysis. By adopting a framework similar to that used in other jurisdictions, the court expands liability to include plaintiffs who suffer real, foreseeable emotional trauma without being in physical peril themselves. This holding clarifies and extends the court's prior ruling in Camper v. Minor, establishing a structured test that aims to permit meritorious claims while still limiting liability through specific requirements, such as a close relationship, sensory observation, and medically-proven severe emotional injury.
