Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

Negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) permits a plaintiff to recover damages for serious emotional distress caused by the defendant's negligent conduct. Unlike intentional infliction of emotional distress, NIED does not require that the defendant intended to cause harm or acted with reckless disregard — ordinary negligence suffices if the plaintiff meets the applicable jurisdictional test.

Courts have developed several frameworks for NIED claims. The traditional impact rule, still followed in some jurisdictions, requires that the plaintiff suffer some physical impact from the defendant's negligence before emotional distress damages are recoverable. The zone of danger test, adopted by many courts, allows recovery when the plaintiff was in the zone of physical danger created by the defendant's negligence and feared for their own safety. The bystander recovery rule, established in Dillon v. Legg and refined in Thing v. La Chusa, allows a bystander to recover for emotional distress from witnessing injury to a third person if the bystander was closely related to the victim, was present at the scene of the injury-producing event, and personally perceived the event.

Most jurisdictions require that the emotional distress be severe or serious to be compensable. Some also require physical manifestation of the emotional distress — such as insomnia, ulcers, or other psychosomatic symptoms — to guard against fraudulent claims. The severity requirement serves as a threshold filter to prevent a flood of trivial claims.

NIED doctrine reflects the tension between compensating genuine emotional harm and limiting liability to manageable bounds. Without any physical impact or zone-of-danger requirement, negligent actors could face unlimited liability to an indeterminate class of persons. The various tests represent different judicial approaches to drawing that line.