The New Jersey Supreme Court took a significant step when it found that negligent infliction of
emotional distress claims based on injury to a loved one should not be limited to legal relatives.
Not exact matches
The court dismissed the plaintiff's tort
claims for defamation and intentional infliction of
emotional distress — but didn't dismiss her
claim based on her «right of publicity».
In Wisconsin, the Supreme Court held in a 2001 case (Rabideau v. City of Racine 243 Wis. 2d 486, 627 N.W. 2d 795) that public policy precluded a pet owner's
claim for
emotional damages
based upon the tort of negligent infliction of
emotional distress in connection with a negligent destruction of a companion dog.
392 (1962); Destefano v. Grabrian, 763 P. 2d 275 (Colo. 1988)(finding
claims for mental pain and suffering,
based on theories of negligence and intentional infliction of
emotional distress, «plainly set forth
claims for alienation of affections and criminal conversation»); Strauss v. Cilek, 418 N.W. 2d 378 (Iowa Ct..
Together with their mother, these three stepchildren sued Walgreen Co. and Tonya M. Peters, n / k / a Tonya M. Pearson for damages
based upon a
claim of «negligent infliction of
emotional distress», arguing that the defendants had caused their beloved stepfather's demise by giving the wrong instructions on how to take the pain medication which caused him to improperly dose himself and die.
The Court seemed to conflate free speech jurisprudence with case law on the intentional infliction of
emotional distress, by applying the content -
based restriction doctrine of the First Amendment to the tort
claim, instead of anaylzing them separately and weighing them against each other.
If you are considering pursuing a
claim based on
emotional distress, here are five things to consider in proving the harms and losses you have incurred
based on your
claim.