About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


36 Ariz. St. L.J. 805 (2004)
A Principled Solution for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Claims

handle is hein.journals/arzjl36 and id is 815 raw text is: A PRINCIPLED SOLUTION FOR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CLAIMS Robert J. Rheet I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 806 II. DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMMON LAW ................................................. 813 A. Early Com m on Law ....................................................................... 813 B. The Bystander Test ......................................................................... 818 C. Federal Common Law .................................................................... 823 III. PROBLEMS POSED BY MENTAL INJURIES ............................................... 831 A. Floodgates of Fraud and Frivolity ................................................. 831 B. Limits of Infinite Foreseeability ..................................................... 836 C. Inherent Biases in Common Law Approach .................................. 842 D. Nature ofArbitrary Rules .............................................................. 845 IV . D UTY R EDEFINED ................................................................................. 847 A. The Palsgraf Problem ..................................................................... 847 B. Classes of Plaintiff's Interests ........................................................ 853 C. Classes of Defendant's Culpability ................................................ 862 V . PROPOSED STANDARD ........................................................................... 865 A. Generally Applicable Rules ............................................................ 865 B. Lim itation of Liability .................................................................... 868 C. P rop ortionality ............................................................................... 868 D. Precedent in Common Law ............................................................ 874 E . D eterrence ...................................................................................... 878 F. P otential Problem .......................................................................... 880 G . N et Effect ........................................................................................ 881 V I. C ON CLU SION ......................................................................................... 883 t Associate Professor of Law, Washburn University School of Law, B.A., University of Chicago; J.D., George Washington University; M.B.A., the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. I was fortunate to have served as a law clerk to Hon. Richard L. Nygaard of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The lessons learned from him form the bases for many concepts in this article. I thank my colleague, Dean Dennis R. Honabach, and my former law partner, Hyung S. Choi, of Choi Rhee & Fabian, for their helpful suggestions. I thank the editorial staff for its recognition of this article as a relevant contribution to the ongoing debate and its professionalism in the editorial process. Any remaining errors are, of course, mine. As always, I thank my wife, Nicki, for her unconditional support.