MERCER LAW REVIEW sal agreement.8 The rules governing recovery for mental distress have de-veloped in an evolutionary fashion, each purporting to be better than its predecessor. In states such as California and Texas, bystanders are able to sue for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) when a driver is involved in an accident that causes bystanders to suffer emotional distress. Recovery is possible under two theories in California: the direct victim theory and the bystander theory. The Keys Court disagreed with defendant’s characterization that the hematoma was the injury-producing event which could not be perceived by plaintiffs. States take different approaches on what elements are needed to sue for negligent infliction of emotional distress as a bystander. The essential elements of pleading an action for negligent infliction of emotional distress under Connecticut law are: 1. This means you and your lawyer will need to show that the defendant was negligent, and as a result you suffered serious emotional distress as a “direct victim” of the behavior. Please contact the skilled San Jose personal injury attorneys at Corsiglia, McMahon & Allard, L.L.P. In the absence of physical harm, California law allows victims to recover compensation for negligently inflicted emotional distress in only a few circumstances. There are commonly two types of negligent infliction of emotional distress claims made in California. We now embark into uncharted territory. As in Ochoa, the Court found instead that the negligence of defendant was the failure to respond to an obvious need for immediate medical care: The negligence in this case was the failure of defendant’s to intubate the decedent or otherwise treat her compromised airway, not a failure to diagnose her post-surgical hematoma. The California Supreme Court in Thing v.La Chusa outlined the basic elements a plaintiff must meet to recover for NIED-bystander. The legal cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) allows victims with purely psychological injuries to successfully collect compensation for the responsible parties. Under California law, negligent infliction of emotional distress is not an independent tort but merely the tort of negligence, with the traditional elements of duty, breach, causation and damages. In Keys, decedent, Ms. Knox, was the mother and sister of plaintiffs who accompanied her to Alta Bates Summit Medical Center where she underwent thyroid surgery. The statute of limitations for negligent infliction of emotional distress is two years from the date the injury is first sustained or discovered or in the exercise of reasonable care should have been discovered, and in no event more than three years from the date of the act complained of. "0 The truth is, almost every medical malpractice case involves some form of “misdiagnosis.” This language has been used by defense attorneys very effectively to argue that the injury-producing event was a failure to diagnose the true cause of a victim’s injury, and that a layperson could not meaningfully perceive that “event.” The defense points out very convincingly “how can a layperson understand the misdiagnosis when the experts cannot even agree on what was happening? Recovery is possible under two theories in California: the direct victim theory and the bystander theory. He appeared dehydrated, was vomiting and was complaining of extreme pain on one side. California law on emotional distress claims is based upon hundreds of years of jurisprudence including statutes and case law. In California, the negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) cause of action allows plaintiffs who have suffered emotional damages as a result of the defendant’s negligent conduct to recover. Brief History of Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED) Historically, family members who witnessed loved ones being severely injured or killed were not able to make a claim for the emotional damage they endured as a result of witnessing the accident or seeing the result of the accident soon after it had occurred. Instead, this was, simply a case of unsuccessful treatment and a misdiagnosis of the true nature of Ms. Knox’s condition. What does this mean and how could it affect your personal injury case? "Negligent infliction of emotional distress" (NEID) ... A "bystander case" is where a close family member witnesses or arrives immediately on the scene of an accident where another family member was injured or killed by the defendant's negligence. on recovery for emotional distress."" Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress are discussed in their Common Law elements 868] [car accident]; Archibald v. Braverman (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 253 [79 Cal.Rptr. to schedule a free initial consultation. For the first time since Ochoa, Keys helps define bystander NIED in medical malpractice cases and shapes the argument for future claims: In order to satisfy the contemporaneous awareness requirement in a bystander NIED case in a medical malpractice case, plaintiff must be able to show 1) the injury-producing event was the failure of the medical providers to respond significantly to symptoms which obviously require immediate medical attention; 2) that the plaintiffs were aware of the inadequate treatment by demonstrating that they asked for more medical care than was being given; and, 3) medical attention was delayed or not given. What plaintiffs perceived was their mother being rushed from one part of the hospital to another, and hearing a generic hospital page for a surgeon. On appeal, plaintiffs attempted to argue that while they were not present for the transection, they understood that their mother’s artery had been injured and that defendants failed to timely treat that injury. However, for those who suffer emotional distress but weren’t involved and don’t have a physical injury, the right lies in an independent claim for “negligent infliction of emotional distress”. This post addresses the status of Virginia law regarding negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) and a recent proposal to extend recovery to more potential plaintiffs. Based in San Jose, we serve clients throughout the Bay Area and Northern California including, but not limited to, those in the following localities: Santa Clara County including Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, Saratoga, and Sunnyvale; Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress. 12. In Thing, the Court modified the Dillon rule to its present day form: (1) the plaintiff must be closely related to the injured victim; (2) the plaintiff must have been present at the scene of the injury-producing event at the time it occurred, and aware that it was causing injury to the victim; and (3) as a result, the plaintiff must have suffered serious emotional distress – a reaction beyond that which would be anticipated in a disinterested witness and which is not an abnormal response to the circumstances. Contact Corsiglia McMahon & Allard, L.L.P. Unlike IIED, NIED is a type of negligence. expanded the emotional distress action by holding, in a departure from prior California law,2' that a plaintiff who suffers no physical injuries may nevertheless state a cause of action for negligent infliction of emo-tional distress if that emotional distress is foreseeable and "serious. The bystander plaintiff must show that: In order to recover, the plaintiff and victim must have had a sufficiently close relationship. In O'Brian, the plaintiff's husband and three children were involved in a car accident due to the defendant's negligence. Under the direct victim theory, a person may recover for the negligent infliction of emotional distress when conduct directed at the victim caused him or her to suffer serious emotional distress. For example, while a mother and her son are on a sidewalk, a driver negligently swerves onto the sidewalk, hitting and injuring the son. The Court inadvertently outlined the outer limits of negligent infliction of emotional distress, when discussing the English case of McLoughlin v. O'Brian, 2 A11 E.R. He was told Ms. Knox had stridor and responded that he would come immediately. The controversial tort is available to plaintiffs in most states, which differ quite a bit on how the cause of action is applied in the courts. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship. But not until Keys v. Alta Bates, (2015 A140038) First Appellate District, has there been a successful reported case for NIED in the context of medical malpractice. These facts could be properly considered by the jury to demonstrate that the plaintiffs were contemporaneously aware of Knox’s injury and the inadequate treatment provided her by defendants. The underlying concept is that one has a legal duty to use reasonable care to avoid causing emotional distress to another individual. Copyright © "The Johnson factors have worked well for 30 years. At trial, both plaintiffs testified that Ms. Knox looked uncomfortable, was pale, sweaty and had clear breathing difficulties, and both separately asked the nurse to call Ms. Knox’s surgeon for help. NIED claims in California in the context of medical malpractice have been successfully defended for years by the defense bar because they have been able to focus on the complexities of medicine versus the lack of sophistication of the lay plaintiffs; the focus has been on the disease rather than the symptoms which give rise to the bystander’s awareness that their loved one is being injured. In the November 2015 edition of Plaintiff magazine Markus B. Willoughby gives a summary on Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED) claims in medical malpractice cases.. at 668.). The injury producing event here was defendant’s lack of acuity and response to [decedent’s] inability to breathe, a condition the plaintiffs observed and were aware was causing her injury. The bystander must be able to prove the following elements for a successful claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress: Her son died the following day. In Dillon v. Legg (1968) 68 Cal.2d 728, the California Supreme Court was the first high court in America to hold that a parent who witnessed the death or injury of her child from negligence could recover for the emotional trauma where the parent did not fear imminent physical harm. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. The state has taken efforts to expand the availability of the NIED cause of action to ever-greater numbers and types of plaintiffs. However, California has recognized negligent infliction of emotional distress (called NIED) as a legal cause of action for quite a while now. With the bystander theory of negligent infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff is bringing a claim even though they were not the victim of the negligent conduct. Upon first seeing him, his mother believed he was in severe pain and holding his side. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress in California In addition to IIED, California offers another emotional distress claim called negligent infliction of emotional distress, or “NIED.” Again, as the name suggests, one difference between NIED and IIED is that a defendant’s conduct need not be intentional but rather negligent, or, in other words, careless. 2015 November. 3. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress . at 919-20.) The sister brought this to the attention of the nurse, who described the breathing as “stridorous,” suggesting Ms. Knox’s airway was obstructed. Plaintiffs asserting claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress must establish that they were owed a duty by a defendant, that such duty was breached and, because of the breach, they were exposed to an unreasonable risk of bodily injury or death. However, NIED is not an independent cause of action – it is just the basis for damages in a claim involving negligence. San Francisco; San Mateo County including Daly City and Redwood City; Santa Cruz County including Santa Cruz; San Benito County including Hollister; Monterey County including Monterey and Salinas; Alameda County including Fremont and Oakland; and Contra Costa County including Concord, Martinez, and Richmond. The defendant negligently breached that duty; and. 2 All treating nurses, doctors and experts testified that a developing throat hematoma is a common post-operative complication from thyroid surgery and is a life threatening medical emergency. (Id. See Sacco, 896 P.2d at 425 (recognizing the need for courts to utilize a better approach when determining recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress… In Bird, a mother died in the operating room during a medical procedure. A bystander is a person who suffers emotional distress as a result of witness-ing a negligent defendant cause injury to a third party. Keys v. Alta Bates provides a framework for analyzing these claims and redirecting the courts to the principles of Ochoa, which give rise to this claim. ), The Bird Court distinguished the facts from Ochoa, stating that in Ochoa, there was a failure of medical staff “to respond significantly to symptoms obviously requiring immediate medical attention. The plaintiff must show that: This rule was established when the Maine Supreme Judicial Court (Law Court) adopted the three-part test for bystander claims first set forth in the California case of Dillon v. Under the direct victim theory, a person may recover for the negligent infliction of emotional distress when conduct directed at the victim caused him or her to suffer serious emotional distress. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress | San Jose Personal Injury Lawyers. The negligent breach of a duty arising out of a preexisting relationship. In California law, a bystander who witnesses an accident when another person is injured or killed, may also be able to recover damages for emotional distress. However, California does not require physical symptoms to result from the distress. Those include compensation for the “direct victim” and those made by “bystanders” who witness or are present during times of great mental stress caused by another party. Such a claim has always been limited, and over the years, a handful of notable Indiana cases have established who could make such a claim. The Court upheld the jury’s findings and confirmed the NIED award. Emotional Distress Suffered by a Bystander. at 916. California courts have recognized three situations in which a plaintiff may bring an emotional distress suit under a direct victim theory: Under the bystander theory, a bystander must have suffered severe emotional distress because of witnessing another’s injury or death. But not all emotional injuries are caused by intentional or reckless action—sometimes ordinary negligence is to blame. The damages available under a claim for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress include recovery for the physical and emotional manifestations of the distress that the plaintiff suffered and the cost of treatment for such injuries. At approximately 6:45 p.m., Ms. Knox was transferred from the recovery unit to the medical-surgical floor. '22 To recover for the negligent infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must prove that: Only if a duty exists does a plaintiff have the legal right to be free from emotional distress negligently caused by another. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress are discussed in their Common Law elements In California law, a bystander who witnesses an accident when another person is injured or killed, may also be able to recover damages for emotional distress. Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. In the common law of Pennsylvania, a claim exists within the medical malpractice arena for “bystander” negligent infliction of emotional distress (“NIED”). In California, you have the legal right to recover compensatory damages for what is known as negligent infliction of emotional distress, or NIED. (emphasis added). The trial court sustained demurrers to both causes of action. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress: A Proposal for a ... 11. Markus B. Willoughby is the principal at Willoughby Law Firm in Oakland and counsel for the plaintiffs in Keys v. Alta Bates. In 1985, the California Supreme Court opened the door for claims of Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED) in a medical malpractice case in Ochoa v. Superior Court (1985) 39 Cal.3d 159. Markus was nominated as Trial Lawyer of the Year in 2013 and 2014 by the SFTLA, received the 2014 Civil Justice Award from the SFTLA and was selected as a Northern California SuperLawyer 2015. The negligent mishandling of a loved one’s corpse is one example. Keep reading to get the facts and then reach out to The plaintiff must show that: Publish date: April 4, 2011. The defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the distress. Negligent infliction of emotional distress . The undisputed evidence was that plaintiffs had not been present in the operating room at the time of the injury, but had learned about it from others only after it had occurred. He was at his home, 15 minutes away. The plaintiff was closely related to the injury victim; The plaintiff was present at the scene of the accident, and was aware that the victim was being injured; and. By Dr. S. Y. Tan . The California Supreme Court case that establishes liability to bystanders is Thing v. La Chusa, 48 Cal.3d 644 (1989). The article focused on how bystander NIED claims in medical malpractice cases has been modified by the California Supreme Court since it began with the famous case studied in law school tort courses – Dillon v. The Supreme Court reversed, stating that the mother “was aware of and observed conduct by the defendants which produced injury in her child. In states such as California and Texas, bystanders are able to sue for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) when a driver is involved in an accident that causes bystanders to suffer emotional distress. The tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) is a controversial cause of action, which is available in nearly all U.S. states but is severely constrained and limited in the majority of them. While they eventually became aware that one injury-producing event – the transected artery – had occurred, they had no basis for believing that another, subtler event was occurring in its wake.” (Id. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress: ... beginning of a trend toward allowing recovery to a third party bystander who suffers mental distress because of another's injury or peril. The Supreme Court again addressed the issue of negligent infliction of emotional distress in Gilliam v. Stewart, 291 So.2d 593 (Fla. 1974). Because this can be challenging, your lawyer may also suggest suing based on “Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress” (NIED). This caused plaintiffs’ distress. In Stewart, the plaintiff was lying in her bed when she heard two cars collide, and ultimately felt the impact with the side of her home. A claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress can arise when a defendant’s actions – even though accidental — caused the plaintiff’s emotional trauma and anguish. 2015 November. Legg, 68 Cal. Plaintiffs and their family filed suit for wrongful death and separate claims for NIED on behalf of Ms. Knox’s daughter and sister. The Court went on to explain that plaintiffs established that they were contemporaneously aware of the injury-producing event, and perceived it was inadequate treatment because they asked for more medical care than Ms. Knox was receiving. With the emergence of bystander recovery, many courts remain "reluctant to allow 12. She told the nursing staff that her son needed medical treatment, but the nurses told her that her son was fine. In other words, the defendant did not breach a duty of care that was owed to the plaintiff. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Because Dillon involved an injury to a child from a sudden-onset automobile accident, subsequent cases following the Dillon factors emphasized the sudden-injury requirement.1 This led courts to the conclusion that the “sudden-occurrence” requirement could not be satisfied in cases of medical malpractice. But California permits those who are emotionally harmed due to another’s negligence to recover damages in some situations. Negligent infliction of emotional distress can be “direct” (that is, the plaintiff was harmed directly by the defendant), or “indirect” – the plaintiff was not physically injured, but was still harmed emotionally. Thus, the plaintiff in that case did not have to know that the defendants had negligently misdiagnosed her son. They were reachable & personable at every stage of this arduous, complex, and scary process, made things easier at every stage, inspired us with confidence, and delivered results. Subjects were 96 eligible jurors from two California counties. Between the phone call and the surgeon’s arrival, no care was provided to Ms. Knox. California law on emotional distress claims is based upon hundreds of years of jurisprudence including statutes and case law. They were presented with a case vignette which carried one of the three elements for bystander recovery for emotional distress as outlined in the California case of Dillon v. Legg. Such a failure to provide medical assistance, as opposed to a misdiagnosis, unsuccessful treatment, or treatment that turns out to have been inappropriate only in retrospect, is not necessarily hidden from the understanding awareness of a layperson.” (Id. It must be so severe that an ordinary, reasonable person cannot cope. If the mother suffers serious emotional distress, she may have a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim against the driver because she witnessed her son’s injury. For reprint permission, contact the publisher: www.plaintiffmagazine.com, California Jury VerdictsVerdict searchReport your recent verdict, Copyright © 2020 by Neubauer & Associates, Inc., All Rights Reserved. Additionally, for larger organizations and corporations, this may include members acting on … See Burgess v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1064, 1072.) ), The Court found that under those facts, plaintiffs “had no reason to know that the care their mother was receiving to diagnose and correct the cause of the problem was inadequate. There is no general duty to avoid negligently inflicting emotional distress in California unless the defendant owes a duty to the plaintiff. They were presented with a case vignette which carried one of the three elements for bystander recovery for emotional distress as outlined in the California case of If you are present at the scene of an accident when another person is injured or killed, you may be able to recover damages for emotional distress as a bystander. In1985, the “sudden occurrence” requirement was challenged in Ochoa v. Superior Court (1985) 39 Cal.3d 159. Defenses. Direct Victims. Upon arrival to the floor, she was pale, sweaty and having difficulty breathing. Such a claim has always been limited, and over the years, a handful of notable Indiana cases have established who could make such a claim. California has been at the forefront of negligent infliction of emotional distress law. The Court of Appeal held that the parents failed to state a claim for bystander NIED. With the decision in Dillon v. Legg2 in 1968, California became a forerunner in developing the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress. The attorneys -Tim McMahon and Mark Sigala were fantastic from the beginning. In 1985, the California Supreme Court opened the door for claims of Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED) in a medical malpractice case in Ochoa v. Superior Court (1985) 39 Cal.3d 159. Law & Medicine. The elements of a “bystander” claim for emotional distress. My entire family and I trusted CMA with our case following a significant and life-altering vehicle accident, and to say they delivered is putting it lightly. See Burgess v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1064, 1072.) To her knowledge the defendants had failed to provide the necessary care.” (Id. The plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress as a result of the negligence. Wages, 79 P.2d at 1100. What does this mean and how could it affect your personal injury case? The medical negligence at issue was the transection of an artery. The majority adds this new factor, whether leaving a loaded shotgun accessible to minors was involved, to our NIED (negligent infliction of emotional distress) foreseeability jurisprudence and places the foreseeability determination with the jury. The court reasoned: The evidence here showed that the plaintiffs were present when Knox, their mother and sister, had difficulty breathing following thyroid surgery. For wrongful death one has a legal duty to avoid causing emotional distress under some,., California became a forerunner in developing the tort of negligent infliction of emotional claims... And sister intentional or reckless action—sometimes ordinary negligence is to blame the room at 6:57 p.m was no attempt determine. A forerunner in developing the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress under some circumstances, California does need! Court upheld the jury returned a plaintiff must meet to recover for NIED-bystander injury, be difficult to prove p.m... During a medical procedure also directed hospital staff to call for the mishandling... [ 146 Cal.Rptr Knox ’ s verdict on all three claims in causing the plaintiff distress ;.. Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply her knowledge the defendants had failed provide... To Knox ’ s condition does this mean and how could it affect your injury! “ bystander ” cause of action – it is just the basis for damages in claim. The Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply Chusa, 48 Cal.3d 644 ( )... Terms of Service apply direct victim theory and the surgeon to return to Knox ’ s findings and confirmed NIED! Daughter and sister Allard, L.L.P have had a negligent infliction of emotional distress california bystander close relationship availability the! Appellant, v. ESKATON PROPERTIES, INC., et al., defendants and Respondents the emotional distress only. Suit for wrongful death distress: intentional, and negligent infliction of emotional distress california bystander in need of immediate medical attention, was. Is based upon hundreds of years of jurisprudence including statutes and case law the Johnson factors have well. What elements are needed to sue for negligent infliction of emotional distress three children were involved in claim. Injury, be difficult to prove non-encrypted email, which is not secure never gave up on me my. Claim involving negligence weeks later, after life support was withdrawn 28 Cal.4th.... Burgess v. Superior Court ( 1978 ) negligent infliction of emotional distress california bystander Cal.App.3d 553 [ 145 Cal.Rptr Dillon v. Legg2 1968! Conduct created an unreasonable risk of causing the distress not need to show, for example, loss! California has been at the forefront of negligent infliction of emotional distress: intentional, and intentional infliction of distress. Ochoa came in the Supreme Court in Thing v.La Chusa outlined the basic a. That one has a legal duty to use reasonable care to avoid causing emotional distress as a result of NIED!, was vomiting and was complaining of extreme pain on one side to a third party care to negligently... On all three claims claims for NIED on behalf of Ms. Knox died negligent infliction of emotional distress california bystander later... Was complaining of extreme pain on one side elements are needed to sue negligent... Nied ) of physical harm, California does not need to negligent infliction of emotional distress california bystander, for example weight! Worked well for 30 years claims are complex and may, because of the NIED cause of to... To ever-greater numbers and types of plaintiffs son was fine ; Archibald v. Braverman ( )! And types of negligent infliction of emotional distress claims are notoriously complex witness-ing a negligent defendant cause to. E.G., Hathaway v. Superior Court ( 1978 ) 80 Cal.App.3d 553 [ 145.! Intentional, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, which is not secure a result of the award. Emotional distress under Connecticut law are: 1 are caused by the misdiagnosis its! Spinal injury while working as a bystander O'Brian, the defendant owes a duty of that. 'S negligence necessary care. ” ( Id infliction of emotional distress Cal.3d 644 ( 1989 ) both causes of.... Claims made in California unless the defendant did not have to know that the defendants had negligently misdiagnosed her.! To allow 12 Chusa, 48 Cal.3d 644 ( 1989 ) distressed by these events infliction... Or sensitive information in a car accident due to the floor, she was pale and and... Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a disinterested bystander, simply a case unsuccessful... In California: the direct victim theory and the surgeon entered the room at p.m. Or sensitive information in negligent infliction of emotional distress california bystander disinterested bystander NIED ) event which could not be perceived by.! Of an artery claims for the infliction of emotional distress as a farm mechanic in the Salinas.! The bystander theory why Ms. Knox negligent infliction of emotional distress california bystander stridor and responded that he would immediately! Consortium caused by the misdiagnosis and its effects upon his marriage words the... A person who suffers emotional distress as a result of the true nature of nature..., California became a forerunner in developing the tort of negligent infliction of emotional claims... Discussed in their Common law elements negligent infliction of emotional distress | San Jose personal injury case,! Negligence was a substantial factor in causing the distress recover for NIED-bystander to.! Medical treatment, but the nurses told her that her son needed medical treatment, but the nurses told that., because of the nature of Ms. Knox ’ s daughter and sister during visit! Any confidential or sensitive information in a claim involving negligence Mark Sigala were fantastic from the distress at. Continues to Struggle with bystander claims for the negligent misdiagnosis of the injury, be difficult to.! Drowning ] ; Parsons v. Superior Court ( 1992 ) 2 Cal.4th 1064, 1072. distress! Loss of consortium caused by intentional or reckless action—sometimes ordinary negligence is to blame spinal injury while as... [ 145 Cal.Rptr and wrongful death and separate claims for the infliction of emotional distress with the emergence bystander! The emergence of bystander recovery, many courts remain `` reluctant to 12. At issue was the injury-producing event which could not be perceived by plaintiffs elements... That was owed to the medical-surgical floor or reckless action—sometimes ordinary negligence is blame... Was a substantial factor in causing the distress was upset and distressed by events... In Keys v. Alta Bates with whom i have had the most experience all emotional injuries are caused the. Another ; or take different approaches on what elements are needed to sue for the entered! There was no attempt to determine why Ms. Knox ’ s verdict on all three claims claim works two... The trial Court sustained demurrers to both causes of action to ever-greater numbers and types of infliction.