Tests for Deciding Emotional Distress Claims

Products Liability

Products liability law covers defective products. If a product contains a design or manufacturing flaw, it is considered defective. If the user of a defective product sustains personal injuries or property damage, the manufacturer or seller of the product could be liable for any injuries or property damage.

Physical Impact Test

One test used by some courts in deciding emotional distress claims is the physical impact test. Under this test, the person seeking damages has to have sustained some physical impact (even slight) or injury as a result of the conduct of the defendant in order to recover damages for emotional distress.

Zone of Danger Test

Under the zone of danger test, a person who sustains a physical impact as a result of the defendant's negligent conduct may recover for his or her emotional injuries. Also, those who are placed in immediate risk of physical harm by the defendant's conduct may recover damages for emotional distress. To recover under the zone of danger test, a person must have been afraid at the time of the event that his or her life or person was in danger.

Relative Bystander Test

A person who witnesses the injury or death of a close relative may recover for emotional distress even if he or she is outside the zone of danger. Some states limit recovery for emotional injury to situations where physical symptoms occur as a result of the emotional distress.

Reasonably Foreseeable Test

A few states allow recovery for serious mental distress that is reasonably foreseeable. In other words, the stress has to be such that a normal person would be unable to cope with it. Recovery is limited to those who are foreseeably endangered by the particular conduct involved.

Fear of Future Disease

Recent cases have sought recovery based on the fear of contracting a serious illness like cancer or AIDS. The California Supreme Court has allowed recovery in such cases only if the person proves that the fear originated from knowledge that the person is more likely than not to develop a serious disease due to exposure to a dangerous substance, such as toxic waste. Medical or scientific evidence has to corroborate the probability of future disease. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that mere exposure to a substance that poses some future risk of disease, without any symptoms, is not sufficient to allow recovery for emotional distress. Courts in Illinois, Texas and Louisiana have also considered the question of recovery based on fear of contracting an illness and have reached different conclusions.

Contact our firm for a free case evaluation