Pennsylvania
How Feldman v. New York applies in Pennsylvania: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Remedies.
Pennsylvania law embraces similar principles as established in Feldman v. New York, particularly regarding recovery for emotional distress stemming from breach of duty. The Pennsylvania courts recognize the necessity of showing physical impact in many cases while still considering standalone emotional distress claims under certain circumstances.
In Pennsylvania, to recover for emotional distress, a plaintiff typically must demonstrate physical injury or impact, unless the claim falls under the exceptions for closely related bystanders or intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Clarified that a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress requires proof of physical impact or emotional distress resulting from a direct and substantial breach of duty.
Held that a plaintiff could recover for emotional distress only when there is corroborating physical injury or loss.
Emphasized the necessity of demonstrating a close relationship to the injured party to claim for emotional distress.
While federal standards might allow for broader claims regarding emotional distress without immediate physical injury, Pennsylvania maintains stricter requirements emphasizing physical impact. This distinction means that while the federal courts can accept more varied interpretations, Pennsylvania’s approach protects defendants from less-verifiable claims.
Understanding the nuances of emotional distress claims under Pennsylvania law is essential for the bar exam, especially the differentiation between general negligence claims and the specific requirements for recovery of emotional distress.