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
No comments:
Post a Comment