Law Commons^™

Direct Actions For Emotional Harm: Is Compromise Possible?, Julie A. Davies

Washington Law Review

While most courts and commentators acknowledge that emotional injury resulting from negligence may merit compensation, they share the conviction that some limits must be placed on such claims. They identify two basic policy rationales as the justifications for limiting claims for emotional harm: (1) the desire to ensure that a defendant's liability for negligence is not disproportionate to his or her fault, and (2) the desire to prevent litigation of trivial or fraudulent claims. This Article argues that the two rules most frequently applied by courts to effectuate limitations on recovery—the "zone-of-danger" rule and the "foreseeability-plus-serious-injury" rule—suffer from serious deficiencies. …