Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
After The Impact Rule - Limiting Defendant's Liability In Negligent Infliction Of Emotional Distress Cases: Bass V. Nooney Co., William Mark Hillsman
After The Impact Rule - Limiting Defendant's Liability In Negligent Infliction Of Emotional Distress Cases: Bass V. Nooney Co., William Mark Hillsman
University of Richmond Law Review
In Bass v. Nooney Co., the Supreme Court of Missouri abandoned the rule that a defendant is not liable for negligence which produces emotional distress unless the plaintiff suffers a contemporaneous physical injury or impact. This "impact rule" was the majority position in the United States in the first part of this century and had been a part of Missouri's jurisprudence since 1881. In Bass, however, Missouri joined the mainstream of American jurisprudence by providing judicial protection against a plaintiff's loss of emotional tranquility without requiring contemporaneous physical impact.
Recovery For Negligently Caused Emotional Trauma Resulting From Fear For The Safety Of Another
Recovery For Negligently Caused Emotional Trauma Resulting From Fear For The Safety Of Another
University of Richmond Law Review
Recovery for emotional trauma has progressed slowly in the century since Lord Wensleydale uttered the above words. The courts have been reluctant to recognize the interest in emotional tranquility both when the interference has been intentional and when it has been negligent.