The Death Of Mrs. Summers ' Injury Of Situational Anxiety And Psychological Hysteria

2. The outcome of this issue is governed by Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 (1965) Outrageous Conduct Causing Severe Emotional Distress. The elements of this cause of action are (1) the wrongdoer's conduct was intentional or reckless, that is, he intended his behavior when he knew or should have known that emotional distress would likely result; (2) the conduct was outrageous, that is, as to go beyond all bounds of decency, and to be regarded as odious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community; (3) the conduct caused the emotional distress; and (4) the emotional distress was severe.

Can plaintiff Ron Arnett state a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) under Pennsylvania law given that Arnett was located twenty feet from the accident that injured Sarah Nolan, saw Ricky Landis running toward the pool and realized immediately after the impact what had happened, but viewed the impact while underwater; and though they share an emotional bond, Arnett and Nolan are not biologically or legally related?

Issue: Under Kentucky tort law, does intentional infliction of emotional distress occur when a person suffers severe insomnia and anxiety as a result of witnessing a friend¡¦s child being injured by a vehicle that is out of control due to being driven at a high rate

Yandrich v. Radic, plaintiff was not successful in his claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff’s father committed suicide allegedly due to his depression from another son being killed by a car. 495 A.2d 460, 246 (Pa. 1981). The Court found that the father was not a witness because he was not in the immediate vicinity of the accident, and thus could not find for the plaintiff in this case. The differences between Yandrich and Ms. Nordlund’s claim outweigh their legal similarities, as the father in Yandrich did not see the scene of the accident like Ms. Nordlund did. Ms. Nordlund’s poor vision is a weakness in her claim, but having heard and seen the accident, (despite her blurry vision), may be strong enough to overcome

In order to state a claim for IIED, a plaintiff must allege “intentional or reckless” conduct. Lasater, 194 Md. App. at 448. “To meet the ‘intentional or reckless’ criterion of the first element, the plaintiff must allege and prove that the defendant either desired to inflict severe emotional distress, knew that such distress was certain or substantially certain to result from his conduct, or acted recklessly in deliberate disregard of a high degree of probability that the emotional distress will follow. Floor, 78 Md. App. at 175 (emphases in original); see also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 8A (““Intentional” when used in this context means “the actor desires to cause consequences of his act, or that he believes that the consequences are substantially certain to result from it.”); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 500 (“If he does an act or intentionally fails to do an act which it is his duty to the other to do, knowing or having reason to know of facts which would lead a reasonable man to realize, not only that his conduct creates an unreasonable risk of physical harm to another, but also that such risk is substantially greater than that which is necessary to make his conduct

A civil suit is commonly derived from a private party or individual, who alleges damages from duty of care. Once a civil case begins, it is the duty of the plaintiff to prove, with evidence, duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and damages. Conversely, the defendant must prove their affirmative defense against documented allegations. The Oliver versus Brock case proves the importance of supporting evidence as opposed to hearsay statements, to prove the truth of the matter. In the Oliver versus Brock case, Cathy (Plaintiff) filed a lawsuit against Bryan Whitfield Memorial Hospital of Demopolis and the treating physicians Dr. F.S. Whitfield, Dr. Paul Ketcham and Dr. E.C. Brock (Defendant) for negligence of care. Analyzing the facts in

Intentional infliction of emotional distress - the Court states that because Texas law places a duty on Briles and McCaw, the Plaintiff 's negligence claim will fill any gaps.

The Woburn case is an example of a complex tort case. A tort case involves any personal injury someone sustains due to the negligence of someone else. The plaintiff is taxed to prove three features: the defendant must have a duty of care for the plaintiff, the defendant breached this duty of care, and general causation. Without general causation, the defendant could have a duty of care and breached this duty of care, but there would not be a tort case only with the association between the defendant’s behavior and the personal injury sustained by the plaintiff.

Motion filed by Defendants J. Foster Phillips Funeral Home, Inc., and J. Leary to dismiss complaint of Plaintiff’s.

Appellant contends that the district court erred in convicting her under the malicious-punishment statue as well as in ruling that the statute does not require proof of bodily harm. Accordingly, if proof of bodily harm is not required for conviction of malicious punishment, the statute is unconstitutionally vague.

Plaintiff further asserts that the Defendant breached its duty of care to her by: (1) “failing to fix a hazardous condition within a reasonable time;” (2) “failing to adequately warn plaintiff of a hazardous condition;” and (3) “otherwise failing to exercise reasonable and due care under the circumstances.” The Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages in the amount of two hundred thousand dollars, plus interest and costs.

Key Facts: Plaintiff and defendants went on a hunting trip. Plaintiff explained them safety rules and instructed them to be careful when shooting. However, while hunting, defendants fired in Plaintiff direction, injuring him in his right eye and face. It was unknown which pellet was fired by who. The plaintiff brought suit for negligence against both defendants.

In this case, the accident is the proximate cause of Mrs. Smith’s injuries and the medical providers are the intervening cause, as their breach of duty exacerbated Mrs. Smith’s injury to the point of permanent disability and disfigurement.

Hamlet is praised as one of the greatest literary works ever written but unlike the title, many characters play key roles in the development of the story and his progression towards revenge induced madness. One such character is Hamlet’s lover Ophelia. She is a pivotal character in the effectiveness as well as execution of the plot for revenge. One fact that is commonly short sited is the relationship Ophelia has with Hamlet and how that ultimately affects his road towards revenge. Without Ophelia there is no Hamlet. Ophelia’s innocence, lack of knowledge and ignorance, and weakness of the mind all play a key role in not only her own but also Hamlet’s demise.

The respondent makes two arguments that claim he has suffered a real life injury, on top of the legal injury, which grants him standing before the court. The court rejects both of these arguments. The first argument brought up by the respondent is that he suffered an economic injury that can be traced directly to the actions of Spokeo, and the second argument is that defamation gives Robins standing.