WALL BY LALLI v. Fisher
565 A.2d 498, 388 Pa.Super. 305, 1989 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3198 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To recover damages for a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress as a bystander, a plaintiff must prove that they suffered a physical harm or injury as a result of the emotional distress; emotional disturbance alone is not sufficient.
Facts:
- Defendants owned a dog.
- The dog allegedly attacked and injured the minor child of Plaintiff Rhonda L. Lalli.
- Rhonda L. Lalli witnessed the alleged attack on her son.
- As a result of witnessing the event, Lalli experienced emotional distress.
- Lalli did not suffer any physical harm or injury, nor did her emotional distress cause any physical symptoms.
- Lalli did not seek treatment from a psychologist, psychiatrist, or hospital for her distress.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs Rhonda L. Lalli and her minor child filed a complaint against the Defendant dog owners in a state trial court.
- Lalli's personal claim was for negligent infliction of emotional distress.
- Following discovery, Defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss Lalli's individual claim.
- The trial court granted the Defendants' motion, dismissing Lalli's claim.
- Rhonda L. Lalli, as Appellant, appealed the trial court's order to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, an intermediate appellate 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 plaintiff state a valid claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress for witnessing an injury to a close relative if the plaintiff alleges only emotional disturbance without any accompanying physical harm or injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Montgomery, J.
No. A claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress requires the plaintiff to have suffered physical harm or injury; emotional disturbance alone is not a compensable damage. The court adopted Section 436A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, as established in Banyas v. Lower Bucks Hospital, which explicitly denies liability for conduct that results in emotional disturbance alone, without bodily harm. Although the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Sinn v. Burd allowed bystander recovery for a parent who witnessed harm to her child, this court interprets Sinn and its progeny as still requiring the element of physical harm or injury to the plaintiff. The court reasons that subsequent Supreme Court cases discussing Sinn consistently presumed the presence of physical injury as a required element for recovery. Therefore, because Rhonda L. Lalli did not allege any physical harm, her claim fails as a matter of law.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces and clarifies the physical harm requirement for bystander claims of negligent infliction of emotional distress in Pennsylvania. It effectively cabins the holding of Sinn v. Burd, preventing an expansion of liability to cases involving purely emotional harm. By adhering strictly to the Restatement's position, the court emphasizes the need for an objective, physical manifestation of injury to guard against fraudulent or limitless claims. This case serves as a clear precedent that even if a bystander plaintiff meets the foreseeability criteria (close relationship, proximity, and contemporaneous observance), their claim will fail without proof of resulting physical injury.
Unlock the full brief for WALL BY LALLI v. Fisher