Robb v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co.
210 A.2d 709 (1965)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff may recover for physical injuries resulting from fright caused by a defendant's negligence, even without contemporaneous physical impact, provided the plaintiff was within the immediate zone of physical danger created by that negligence.
Facts:
- The Pennsylvania Railroad Company negligently allowed a deep rut to form at a railroad grade crossing on a private lane leading to the home of Dixie B. Robb.
- While driving on the lane, Robb's automobile became lodged in the rut at the crossing, and she was unable to move it.
- As she attempted to free the vehicle, Robb saw the defendant's train approaching at high speed.
- Robb jumped from the vehicle just seconds before the train collided with and demolished it.
- Robb was standing within a few feet of the collision and was covered in soot and dirt, but she was not physically touched by the train or any debris.
- As a result of the extreme fright from the incident, Robb suffered severe nervous shock which led to physical injuries, including the cessation of lactation and a general decline in her physical health.
- These physical ailments forced Robb to abandon her horse breeding business and a paid writing engagement.
Procedural Posture:
- Dixie B. Robb sued The Pennsylvania Railroad Company in the Superior Court of Delaware, the state's trial court of general jurisdiction.
- The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that recovery was barred because there was no physical impact.
- The Superior Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, feeling compelled to follow the 'impact theory' based on its interpretation of state precedent.
- The plaintiff, Dixie B. Robb, as the appellant, appealed the summary judgment ruling to the Supreme Court of Delaware, 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 Delaware law permit recovery for physical injuries resulting from fright caused by a defendant's negligence when the plaintiff was in the immediate zone of physical danger but suffered no contemporaneous physical impact?
Opinions:
Majority - Herrmann, Justice
Yes. Where negligence proximately causes fright to a person within the immediate area of physical danger, and that fright in turn produces physical consequences, the injured party is entitled to recover damages. The court rejects the traditional 'impact rule,' which required a physical touching to recover for emotional distress. The court dismantles the three primary justifications for the impact rule: 1) that since fright alone is not actionable, its consequences are not either (a non-sequitur); 2) that the causal link between fright and physical injury is too remote and unprovable (a view outdated by modern medicine); and 3) that allowing such claims would open a 'Pandora's Box' of fraudulent lawsuits. The court dismisses this public policy argument as an 'expediency argument,' stating that the risk of fraudulent claims does not justify denying a remedy to those who have suffered a substantial wrong. By adopting the 'zone of danger' rule, the court aligns Delaware with the modern majority of jurisdictions and provides a remedy for tangible physical harm resulting from negligently induced fear.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant development in Delaware tort law by formally abandoning the archaic 'impact rule' for claims of negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED). In its place, the court adopts the 'zone of danger' rule, which had become the majority position in the United States. This holding expands the scope of a defendant's liability for negligence, recognizing that foreseeable physical harm can be proximately caused by fright alone, without any physical contact. The case lowers the barrier for plaintiffs with legitimate claims of physical injury resulting from severe emotional trauma, reflecting a greater trust in the judicial system's ability to vet claims and a modernization of tort principles in light of medical and legal advancements.
Unlock the full brief for Robb v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co.