Newsletters

The Expansion of Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Claims

The Minnesota Supreme Court recently expanded the scope of law applicable to claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress (“NIED”) in Engler v. Illinois Farmers Ins. Co., 706 N.W.2d 764 (Minn. 2005). Prior to Engler, a plaintiff claiming NIED needed to prove the four elements of negligence (duty, breach of duty, injury, and causation) along with the three additional NIED elements: (1) the plaintiff was within the zone of danger of physical impact, (2) the plaintiff reasonably feared for her own safety, and (3) the plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress with attendant physical manifestations. See K.A.C. v. Benson, 527 N.W.2d 553, 557 (Minn. 1995). In Engler, the court allowed a plaintiff to recover for emotional distress caused by witnessing the injury or death of another person. However, the court restricted this by requiring the plaintiff to show that they stand in a close relationship to the third-party victim.

In Engler, Ms. Engler stopped at the side of the road and stood outside the car while her 4 year old son relieved himself near a tree line approximately 30 feet away. The driver of an oncoming vehicle lost control over car as she drove along the same road. Ms. Engler believed the car was going to strike her, but then realized that the vehicle was heading toward her son. Ms. Engler turned away just as vehicle struck her child, who sustained serious injuries in the accident. Ms. Engler sued for NIED.At her deposition, Ms. Engler testified that she was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress syndrome and depression as a result of the accident.Ms. Engler brought an underinsured motorist claim against Illinois Farmers.

The Court held that a plaintiff may recover damages for NIED if the plaintiff can prove that “she: (1)was within the zone of danger of physical impact; (2) had an objectively reasonable fear for her own safety; (3) suffered severe emotional distress with attendant physical manifestations; and (4) stands in a close relationship to the third-party victim.”The Court went on to hold that to recover for NIED as a result of the injury of a third-party, the third-party victim must suffer either death or serious bodily injury.

The court did not create a new cause of action. Rather, it simply expanded the NIED cause of action already in  existence.Further the zone of danger element provides a bright line test to limit recovery. While the court did not define who stands in a “close relationship” with a victim, the concurring opinion qualified the relationship as one where the thirdparty victim is a spouse, parent,child, grandparent, grandchild, or sibling. Consequently, one can expect more claims for emotional distress as a result of seeing someone injured with which the person has a “close relationship.”