FALZONE V. BUSCH case brief

FALZONE V. BUSCH

• near-auto accident, plaintiff sues for fright

• court overturns ruling in Ward (no liability without physical injury– that ruling doesn’t hold for three reasons (p. 263):

• the impact requirement had led to ridiculous results (dust in eye)

• courts have to deal with fraud and speculation all the time anyway

• other jurisdictions that have adopted the rule have not been flooded with litigation • plaintiffs still have to prove all the other elements of a tort; must be a reasonable fear of immediate injury with some physical manifestation of the emotional injury

• holding: reversed for plaintiff