Wyman v. Leavitt
71 Me. 227 (1880) (1880)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a negligence action, damages for mental suffering alone, such as fear or anxiety, are not recoverable unless accompanied by a physical injury to the person.
Facts:
- The defendant, a sub-contractor, was engaged in blasting a rock ledge for a railroad.
- The defendant's blasting operations caused rocks to be thrown upon the adjoining property of the plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Wyman.
- The rocks landed on the Wymans' land and damaged their buildings.
- Neither Mrs. Wyman nor her child sustained any direct physical injury as a result of the blasting.
- Mrs. Wyman testified that during the blasting, she experienced significant fear and anxiety for her own personal safety and for the safety of her child.
- There was no evidence that the defendant's conduct was wanton or malicious; it was a case of simple negligence.
Procedural Posture:
- Mr. and Mrs. Wyman each filed an action on the case against the defendant sub-contractor in the trial court.
- The two cases were tried together before a jury.
- During the trial, the defendant objected to Mrs. Wyman's testimony regarding her fear and anxiety, but the trial court overruled the objection and admitted the evidence.
- The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, including a specific monetary award to Mrs. Wyman for 'mental anxiety.'
- The defendant filed exceptions to the trial court's evidentiary ruling and the subsequent jury award, effectively appealing the decision to 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 plaintiff's mental suffering, such as fear for their own or their child's safety, constitute a recoverable element of damages in a negligence action when there is no accompanying physical injury to the person?
Opinions:
Majority - Virgin, J.
No. Mental suffering alone, without an accompanying physical injury to the person, is not a compensable form of damages in a simple negligence action. The court reasoned that while damages for mental pain are recoverable when they are a consequence of a physical injury, the law does not redress mental anxiety when it is the only harm caused by a defendant's simple negligence. The court found no precedent to support such a claim and noted that allowing it would open the door to a flood of litigation from anyone who was merely frightened by a perilous situation without being physically harmed. Furthermore, the court held that a parent's anxiety for a child's safety is also not recoverable, as damages for injury to a child are generally limited to the parent's loss of the child's services, with narrow exceptions for torts like seduction or abduction which do not apply here.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a version of the "no-impact rule," drawing a clear distinction between recoverable and non-recoverable emotional distress damages in tort law. By requiring a physical injury as a predicate for recovering damages for mental suffering in negligence cases, the court set a significant precedent to limit the scope of liability. This ruling prevents potentially limitless claims based on subjective fear and anxiety, differentiating simple negligence from intentional or malicious torts where emotional harm is more readily compensable. While later legal developments would create exceptions like the "zone of danger" rule, this case represents the traditional common law baseline that pure emotional distress is not, by itself, a legally recognized injury in negligence.
Unlock the full brief for Wyman v. Leavitt