Who Has The Burden Of Proof For Nied in Torts?

The plaintiff has the burden of proof to establish a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) by a preponderance of the evidence.

In tort law, the burden of proof in a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) rests with the plaintiff. The plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant's conduct was negligent and that it directly resulted in emotional distress. The standard for proof is typically 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning that the plaintiff must show that it is more likely than not that the defendant's actions caused their emotional harm.

The plaintiff must further show that they were in the zone of danger or that they observed the defendant's negligent act causing harm to a close family member, depending on the jurisdiction. This requirement stems from concerns about the floodgates of litigation where any emotional distress could result in frivolous claims without concrete damages.

Important considerations include the severity of the emotional distress and whether it is medically diagnosed. In many jurisdictions, courts have established that mere upset or anger does not suffice; the distress must reach a certain threshold to be compensable. For example, a plaintiff may need to provide evidence of treatment by a mental health professional to strengthen their claim.

Some courts may recognize bystander claims for NIED, where a plaintiff witnesses a traumatic event that causes them emotional distress. However, they still carry the burden to prove the required connection between their emotional harm and the defendant's negligence.

Overall, the burden of proof in NIED claims is critical as it establishes the parameters for emotional distress recoveries under tort law. Plaintiffs should prepare to substantiate their claims not only through their testimony but also through expert evidence that underlines the emotional toll experienced due to the negligent conduct.

• 1Dillon v. Legg (1968) - Established the 'bystander' rule, allowing recovery for NIED under certain circumstances.
• 2Thing v. La Chusa (1989) - Confirmed the need for a close familial relationship for bystander claims.
• 3Wilks v. KABR (1991) - Explored the standard of emotional distress severity required to meet NIED claims.
• 4Rowland v. Christian (1968) - Discussed the overall duty of care and its implications for emotional distress.
• 5Burgess v. Jordan (1983) - Addressed the necessity of a physical impact test in some jurisdictions.

• what-are-the-elements-of-nied
• how-is-nied-different-from-intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress
• can-bystanders-recover-in-nied-claims