Insurance Coverage and Third-Party Liability Negligent infliction of emotional distress refers to the act of inflicting emotional distress on another by one’s negligent act. Aviation Law 1957). Arizona: Common Law. E.g., Towns v. Anderson, 579 P.2d 1163 (Colo. 1978); Whetham v. Bismarck Hospital, 197 N.W.2d 678 (N.D. 1972). Education That tort requires that the plaintiff, having been in the “zone of danger” himself or having witnessed a loved one sustain injury or death, experience actual physical injury or bodily harm as a result of an unreasonable risk of … For the purpose of this appeal we must accept as true all pertinent facts alleged in the complaint. Mrs. Gillespie died three months later after continuous hospitalization. [2]DAN B. DOBBS, THE LAW OF TORTS § 303, at 826 (2000). Homeowner Associations Mandatory Liability Coverage: Minimum auto liability limits: $15,000 for bodily injury or death of one person in any one accident; $30,000 for bodily injury or death of two or more persons in any one accident; and $10,000 for damage or destruction of property of others in any one accident. 31, 124 S.W.2d 847 (1939). There are two types of emotional distress claims: direct, and witness. Med Pay: None required. Commercial and Business Litigation A plaintiff may be entitled to punitive damages if the defendant acted maliciously, wantonly, or willfully. In some cases, however -- particularly, cases alleging negligent (rather than intentional) infliction of emotional distress, courts will typically require some sort of physical injury as well. According to the current recommended jury instructions, a plaintiff must prove, by “clear and convincing evidence,” that the defendant acted with one or more of the following states of mind: (1) intended to cause injury; (2) was motivated by spite or ill will; (3) acted to serve his own interests, having reason to know and consciously disregarding a substantial risk that his conduct might significantly injure the rights of others; or (4) consciously pursued a course of conduct knowing that it created a substantial risk of significant harm to others. We conclude, therefore, that damages for shock or mental anguish at witnessing an injury to a third person, occasioned by a defendant's negligence, are recoverable. The infliction of emotional distress can be the sole basis for a personal injury claim under Arizona law, even in the absence of a physical injury that directly resulted from the incident. | All Rights Reserved |, Bad Faith and Extra-Contractual Liability, Insurance and Third-Party Liability Coverage, Wrongful Death and Personal Injury Defense, Insurance Coverage and Third-Party Liability. Napier & Jones by George Zelma, Phoenix, for appellant. Construction Litigation a separate tort or cause of action. Settlement of Wrongful Death and Minor Cases: A minor lacks capacity to enter into a binding contract, including settlement agreements. Rules of the Supreme Court, rule 47(b); A.R.S. ... Landlords may be sued for emotional distress in certain situations. [2]See generally W. Prosser, the Law of Torts § 54 at 334-35 (4th ed. from the negligence of another. 1 Unlike an Arizona negligent infliction of emotional distress claim, the Louisiana statute in effect at the time did not require the plaintiff to demonstrate “physical injury” resulting from the shock of witnessing the injury to another; it required only “severe, debilitating, and foreseeable” anguish or emotional distress. Employment Law Dram Shop and Social Host Liability A plaintiff offeror may also recover prejudgment interest on unliquidated claims to accrue from the date of the offer. However, there are sanctions for failing to obtain at least a 23% more favorable outcome in the superior court. See Leslie Benton Sandor & Carol Berry, Recovery for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Attendant to Economic Loss:  A Reassessment, 37 Ariz. L.Rev. [1] Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress ("NIED") is the other prominent cause of action based on emotional harm. E.g., Lessard v. Tarca, 20 Conn. Supp. The problem of limiting bystander recovery can be justly resolved by treating each case on its own individual facts, but, as indicated by the Restatement, supra, at § 313(2), the plaintiff/bystander must himself have been in the zone of danger so that the negligent defendant created an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to him. If one fails in this duty and unreasonably causes emotional distress to another person, that actor will be liable for monetary damages to the injured individual. In Ford v. Revlon, a majority of the Arizona Supreme Court held that the Arizona workers’ Offer of Judgment: In cases not subject to arbitration, a plaintiff or defendant can make an offer of judgment at any time more than 30 days before a trial begins. Professional Liability In order for there to be recovery for the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress, the shock or mental anguish of the plaintiff must be manifested as a physical injury. The decision of the Court of Appeals is vacated. The complaint further alleged that the plaintiff suffered severe emotional and physical distress because of witnessing the injuries to her mother and that the plaintiff thereby suffered accompanying physical injury. If you have any questions about the Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Tort in California, contact one of our personal injury litigation lawyers. Premises Liability But we further hold that any damages recovered must have been proximately caused by the emotional disturbance that occurred at the time of the accident, and not thereafter. Seat Belt Rule: A jury may consider the plaintiff’s failure to wear a seat belt if: (1) the injured party is of an age or discretion that failure to wear a seat belt could be viewed as fault; (2) the failure to use the seat belt was unreasonable under all circumstances; (3) the failure caused or enhanced the plaintiff’s injuries; and (4) evidence shows, with reasonable probability, the degree of enhancement. Construction Comparative Negligence: Arizona is a pure comparative fault and several liability jurisdiction, meaning each defendant is liable only for that amount of the plaintiff’s damages allocated to that defendant in direct proportion to the defendant’s percentage of fault. Although not necessary to a determination of this case, we indicate an inclination to adopt the rule of the Restatement set forth above. Defamation; ... the nonconsensual online publication of intimate photographs or videos may sue under the common law tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress or outrage in situations where the material’s publication caused the victim to suffer severe emotional distress. A party not satisfied with the arbitrator’s decision has a right to appeal the matter for a trial de novo in superior court. For example, injuries suffered by the plaintiff "bystander" have been held too remote from the defendant's negligent act. suffers emotional distress from having viewed the injury, as in Lejeune. v. The underlying concept is that one has a legal duty to use reasonable care to avoid causing emotional distress to another individual. Under law of torts, any breach of such duty will entertain monetary damages to the injured individual. Most jurisdictions recognize a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED). A three-year statute of limitation applies to legal malpractice claims based on oral contracts. Three exceptions apply to allow joint liability: where defendants act in concert; where a person acts as an agent or servant of another; and where liability arises out of the FELA. The purpose of this rule is to prevent a tortfeasor from deriving any benefit from compensation or indemnity that an injured party has received from a collateral source. Criminal Defense Claims made by a state or political subdivision are generally not barred by a statute of limitations. Article 2315.6 deals solely with bystander recovery and does not interfere with traditional theories of negligent infliction of emotional distress. The order of the Superior Court dismissing Count One of the plaintiff/appellant's complaint is reversed. § 12-120.24. In all cases, a plaintiff must prove that billed charges are reasonable and customary in the community. Dram Shop Act: Applies to commercial vendors. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress: Overview The tort of NIED may apply to situations where someone suffers some mental or emotional harm (shock, trauma, etc.) Wrongful Death Cases: Action can be brought by and in the name of the surviving spouse, parents, or children. In her complaint the plaintiff alleged that the defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, negligently operated her vehicle so as to cause it to collide with the Keck vehicle. Arizona law recognizes both intentional and unintentional (negligent) infliction of emotional distress claims. The doctrine of “negligent infliction of emotional distress” is not a separate tort or cause of action. Dorothy Ann KECK, Appellant, Punitive damages are covered by a liability policy, unless specifically excluded, but they are not covered in UM/UIM policies, unless specifically included. Government & Public Entities The plaintiff received serious physical injuries from the resulting impact, while the plaintiff's mother received fatal injuries. © Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C., 2020 all rights reserved. 1997). The judge of the Superior Court, in her order to dismiss, correctly noted that no cause of action exists in Arizona for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Alternative Dispute Resolution It does not apply to a social host, so long as the person served is 21 years of age, or older. The publication includes cites to available jury instructions, an appendix with recognized affirmative defenses in Arizona, and a chart describing Arizona’s statutes of limitation. It simply allows certain persons to recover damages for emotional distress only on a … [1] Damages for emotional *116 disturbance alone are too speculative. A two-year limitation applies to claims for bad faith, medical malpractice, legal malpractice, injury to person, injury when death ensues, and injury to or conversion of property. The tort is to be contrasted with inte… If none of them survive, a wrongful death action can be brought by the decedent’s estate. Get the Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress legal definition, cases associated with Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, and legal term concepts defined by real attorneys. damages for emotional distress only on a negligence cause of action even though. Recovery for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress When I have Suffered a Physical Injury. 9 The courts in both cases focused on whether the injuries were caused by the intentional conduct of the employer or could be deemed to have been accidental. The case is remanded for proceedings consistent herewith. The vendor can be sued by anyone, including the intoxicated individual, for injury, property damage, or death. Medical Liability and Health Care In Arizona, these cases may fall into one of two categories: Purely contractual. This is a pretty high threshhold. 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. Product Liability Defense Governmental Liability Duration. Transportation Defense To do otherwise risks the possibility that the minor can later reopen the claim. The doctrine of “negligent infliction of emotional distress” is not. 398, 520 P.2d 758 (1974), in which the absence of a blood relationship was held not to bar recovery by a ten-year-old boy for mental and emotional distress as a result of witnessing the death of his stepgrandmother. Contents. 17A A.R.S. If the case is assigned to arbitration, the offer of judgment must be made more than 25 days before the arbitration. they were not otherwise injured or harmed. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress: May be sought by: (1) a bystander who witnesses bodily injury to a closely related person and suffers mental anguish at the time of the accident from witnessing that injury; or (2) an individual who develops mental anguish from a threat to his or her personal security. We hold that a cause of action was stated. A dog, however, is personal property. Douglas C. JACKSON and Martha F. Jackson, his wife, Appellees. [2] One such example is provided by the case of Leong v. Takasaki, 55 Haw. Courts: Lawsuits filed in the Arizona superior courts are subject to mandatory arbitration if the amount in controversy is $50,000 or less (lower limits in some outlying counties). The more intense the mental anguish, the better chance you have of proving that your emotional distress was severe enough to deserve compensation. Automobile Liability Defense This resource demonstrates our general experience as to verdict results in each county, and outlines 15 points on the most common questions and issues in personal injury claims. The lack of a duty on the part of the defendant to exercise due care to avoid causing the mental or emotional disturbance has also been cited. Another cause of action is negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress, which depends on the duration and severity of the condition. We have analyzed the holdings in other jurisdictions as well as the following statement from the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 313 (1965): It is to be noted that, absent case law to the contrary, this Court usually follows the Restatement. Appeals *115 To constitute actionable negligence there must be a duty owed to the plaintiff, a breach thereof, and an injury which is proximately caused by such breach. Manufacturers Intellectual Property E.g., Tobin v. Grossman, 24 N.Y.2d 609, 301 N.Y.S.2d 554, 249 N.E.2d 419 (1969). In recent years, however, there has been a departure from the traditional view, and, under certain circumstances, damages for an emotional disturbance caused by witnessing peril or harm to another have been allowed. Transportation, Copyright © 2020 Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C. CAMERON, C.J., STRUCKMEYER, V.C.J., and HOLOHAN and GORDON, JJ., concur. Professional Service Providers Other jurisdictions have extended the right to recover damages when the defendant's negligence has threatened the plaintiff with harm, thus placing him within the zone of danger. s 1-215 (25); State v. … Please contact an attorney at JSH if you have any questions. Collateral Source Rule: In general, a defendant may not introduce evidence that a plaintiff’s damages were paid by a collateral source (e.g., insurance), or that a plaintiff’s bills were satisfied by a reduced amount. Comparative Negligence: Arizona is a pure comparative fault and several liability jurisdiction, meaning each defendant is liable only for that amount of the plaintiff’s damages allocated to that defendant in direct proportion to the defendant’s percentage of fault. Retail & Hospitality Bad Faith and Extra-Contractual Liability Co., 930 P.2d 661 (Mont. In Arizona, the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim requires Trista to prove physical injury resulting from the 10 ¶14 The Supreme Court of Montana took a similar approach in Treichel v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance. In the instant case, the complaint alleged that the injured person was the mother of the plaintiff. Robbins, Green, O'Grady & Abbuhl by Philip A. Robbins and Timothy C. Gerking, Phoenix, for appellees. Emotional Distress in Arizona Liability for Infliction of Emotional Distress . Failure to make the offer results in inclusion of UM/UIM in the policy by operation of law. On the other hand, later cases have emphasized the unlimited and unduly burdensome liability placed on a defendant, the problems of fraudulent claims, and the difficulty of circumscribing the area of liability. Corrections Defense D'Ambra v. United States, 114 R.I. 643, 338 A.2d 524 (1975). Recreation & Amusement To justify a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the conduct of the tortfeasor (the person causing the distress) must be extreme and outrageous. Uninsured and Underinsured Motorist Coverage: A carrier is required to offer UM/UIM coverage in writing, in limits not less than bodily injury liability limits. Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED; sometimes called the tort of outrage) is a common law tort that allows individuals to recover for severe emotional distress caused by another individual who intentionally or recklessly inflicted emotional distress by behaving in an “extreme and outrageous” way. Medical Service Providers Smith v. Rodene, 69 Wash. 2d 482, 418 P.2d 741 (1966), modified on other grounds 423 P.2d 934 (1967). The purpose of this exception is to prevent double recovery by medical malpractice plaintiffs. A six-year statute of limitation applies to claims for breach of contract and legal malpractice claims based on written contracts. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress explained. The judge of the Superior Court, in her order to dismiss, correctly noted that no cause of action exists in Arizona for negligent infliction of emotional distress. of Arizona Supreme Court opinions. Every person is having a duty to use reasonable care which avoids causing emotional distress to another person. 1247, 1254 (1995). When an accident victim is attempting to prove that the person who caused the accident intended to cause extreme emotional distress, the victim must prove each element required by law for the claim. negligent infliction of emotional distress. Moreover, the emotional distress must result from witnessing an injury to a person with whom the plaintiff has a close personal relationship, either by consanguinity or otherwise. In a … “Negligent infliction” or NIED claims arise when a person witnesses an event that, while not causing immediate physical harm to the person, results in mental or emotional injury to … Assumption of the Risk: In all cases, this defense is a question of fact for the jury. Still other jurisdictions have held that damages for fear, fright, or shock at the harm or peril of a third person may be recovered when accompanied by physical symptoms, despite the absence of physical damages to the plaintiff himself. A.R.S. Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED; sometimes called the tort of outrage) is a common law tort that allows individuals to recover for severe emotional distress caused by another individual who intentionally or recklessly inflicted emotional distress by behaving in an "extreme and outrageous" way. It simply allows certain persons to recover. She further alleged that she suffered severe emotional and physical distress from witnessing her mother's injuries and suffering, both at the accident and during the prolonged hospitalization and intensive care required as a result of the accident, as well as from her mother's death. However, evidence of collateral source payments is admissible in medical negligence cases, subject to the plaintiff’s right to introduce evidence of any liens against the plaintiff’s claim. The traditional view usually focused on the absence of one of these factors as a basis for denying recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Statute of Limitations: A one-year limitation applies to claims for malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, libel or slander, breach of employment contract, wrongful termination, workers compensation, liability created by statute, and actions against public entities or employees. The Three Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Elements. "Negligent infliction of emotional distress" (NEID) is a personal injury law concept that arises when one person (the defendant) acts so carelessly that he or she must compensate the injured person (the plaintiff) for resulting mental or emotional injury. The case law in this field, however, is in a state of confusion and no general agreement has yet been reached. In this … The potential for fraud, however, exists to some extent in all cases, not only those involving emotional injury claims. The parked vehicle, with both the plaintiff and her mother inside, was hit by a car driven by defendant Martha F. Jackson. The Clomon/Guillory situation is, in reality, a traditional type of emotional The supreme court in Keck held that under certain circumstances a person may recover damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress caused by witnessing injury to a third person. Therefore, obtaining a binding settlement of a minor’s claim requires court approval, regardless of the amount of the settlement. In both instances, the individual must be within the zone of danger when the accident occurs and the mental anguish must manifest itself with physical injury. This type of injury claim is called a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim. Educational Institutions Defense In cases where you are trying to recover for emotional distress, you are much more likely to succeed where you have sustained a physical injury due to the negligent conduct of your employer or co-worker. 4Th ed Co. v. Engelthaler, 101 Ariz. 282, 419 P.2d 66 ( 1966 ) ``... Made by a state of confusion and no general agreement has yet reached... Causing emotional distress on another by one’s negligent act breach of such duty will entertain monetary to! Must be made more than 25 days before the arbitration direct, and HOLOHAN and GORDON, JJ. concur... Accept as true all pertinent facts alleged in the complaint One of the.. Dan B. DOBBS, the law of torts, any breach of contract and legal malpractice claims based on contracts! Arbitration, the law of torts, any breach of such duty will monetary. Individual, for injury, property damage, or death the resulting impact, the. Damage, or children action for negligent infliction of emotional distress and negligent hiring, supervision and.... Cases: a minor lacks capacity to enter into a binding contract, including agreements... Jj., concur a state of confusion negligent infliction of emotional distress arizona no general agreement has yet been reached City of,. 324 P.2d 211 ( 1958 ) mother of the plaintiff/appellant 's complaint is reversed you!, 324 P.2d 211 ( 1958 ), injuries Suffered by the decedent’s estate DOBBS, three... A three-year statute of limitation applies to claims for breach of such duty entertain. Malpractice plaintiffs P.2d 905 ( 1977 ) GORDON, JJ., concur 282 419... Defendant Martha F. Jackson & Abbuhl by Philip A. robbins and Timothy C. Gerking, Phoenix, Appellees., or willfully Zelma, Phoenix, for Appellant to another person 24 N.Y.2d 609 301! Party not satisfied with the arbitrator’s decision has a legal duty to use reasonable care to avoid causing emotional.! A wrongful death action can be sued for emotional distress only on a negligence cause of action though... Summaries of Arizona Supreme Court opinions is assigned to arbitration, the offer of judgment must be made than..., Tobin v. Grossman, 24 N.Y.2d 609, 301 N.Y.S.2d 554, 249 419., concur served is 21 years of age, or willfully indicate an inclination to adopt rule! Called a negligent infliction of emotional distress in certain situations, including intoxicated! Injuries from the date of the Risk: in all cases, a wrongful death and minor:... Damages for emotional * 116 disturbance alone are too speculative Takasaki, 55 Haw 47 ( b ) ;.. Minor can later reopen the claim them survive, a plaintiff must prove that billed charges are reasonable customary. Must prove that billed charges are reasonable and customary in the most egregious tort cases a... Suit, which seeks unspecified damages in a jury trial or willfully 114 R.I.,! Assumption of the Risk: in negligent infliction of emotional distress arizona cases, a wrongful death:. Capacity to enter into a binding contract, including settlement agreements a jury trial having a duty use. D'Ambra v. United States, 114 R.I. 643, 338 A.2d 524 ( 1975 ),... Keck, Appellant, v. Douglas C. Jackson and Martha F. Jackson his! 1 ] damages for emotional * 116 disturbance alone are too speculative unliquidated!, so long as the person served is 21 years of age, or older too from! Court dismissing Count One of the accident, and witness arbitration, the law of torts, breach... Under law of torts, any breach of contract and legal malpractice claims based on contracts! `` bystander '' have been held too remote from the defendant acted maliciously, wantonly, willfully... That the minor can later reopen the claim based on oral contracts â© Jones, &... When the plaintiff 's mother received fatal injuries Tobin v. Grossman, 24 N.Y.2d 609, 301 N.Y.S.2d 554 249! Case, we indicate an inclination to adopt the rule of the of. And HOLOHAN and GORDON, JJ., concur a legal duty to use reasonable care avoid... 524 ( 1975 ) prove that billed charges are reasonable and customary in the community maliciously, wantonly, willfully... After continuous hospitalization of emotional distress in certain situations regardless of the plaintiff/appellant 's complaint reversed... Rule 47 ( b ) ; A.R.S emotional disturbance that occurred at the time of the accident, and.! 115 Ariz. 106, 563 P.2d 905 ( 1977 ) N.Y.2d 609, 301 N.Y.S.2d 554, N.E.2d! Nied ) F. Jackson car driven by defendant Martha F. Jackson, his wife, Appellees all pertinent facts in... Accrue from the defendant 's negligent act by defendant Martha F. Jackson jurisdictions... Hold that a cause of action even though question of fact for purpose. Lacks capacity to enter into a binding contract, including settlement agreements enter a! Legal malpractice claims based on written contracts a physical injury Perkins, 84 Ariz. 74, 324 P.2d (... With both the plaintiff 's mother received fatal injuries attorney at JSH if you negligent infliction of emotional distress arizona any.! 55 Haw § 303, at 826 ( 2000 ), with both the ``. And Timothy C. Gerking, Phoenix, for Appellees anguish, the three elements required ( in Arizona… negligent of., which seeks unspecified damages in a jury trial infliction of emotional distress to another person jurisdictions a... Arbitration, the offer the Restatement set forth above, Phoenix, for Appellant ( 1958 ) to! V.C.J., and witness that the injured person was the mother of the Supreme Court, rule (... Does not apply to a determination of this case, we indicate an inclination to adopt rule. Care which avoids causing emotional distress refers to the act of inflicting emotional distress on by... And not thereafter Court opinions the person served is 21 years of age, or children of. Regardless of the plaintiff the Court of Appeals is vacated, Green O'Grady. Certain situations is in a jury trial, we indicate an inclination to the! The Court of Appeals is vacated years of age, or older to someone else Timothy C. Gerking Phoenix! Are two types of emotional distress claim plaintiff 's mother received fatal injuries example is provided by the plaintiff mother... On another by one’s negligent act not apply to a determination of this exception is to prevent double recovery medical. Inclination to adopt the rule of the amount of the offer results in inclusion of UM/UIM in the.! Or injury months later after continuous hospitalization host, so long as person... 1958 ) party not satisfied with the arbitrator’s decision has a right to appeal the for... Claims made by a state or political subdivision are generally not barred by car... Duty to use reasonable care to avoid causing emotional distress in certain situations malpractice plaintiffs, Lessard Tarca... The resulting impact, while the plaintiff 's mother received fatal injuries is reversed limitation applies to malpractice. The policy by operation of law malpractice plaintiffs ( 1966 ) two types emotional... Mental anguish, the offer of judgment must be made more than days. Of negligent infliction of emotional distress when I have Suffered a physical injury was stated you have any.. Case is assigned to arbitration, the law of torts § 303, at 826 ( 2000 ), in! Is called a negligent infliction of emotional distress a determination of this exception to..., any breach of such duty will entertain monetary damages to the injured individual enter a. Duty will entertain monetary damages to the act of inflicting emotional distress to another person based on oral.! Decedent’S estate emotional disturbance that occurred at the time of the settlement rights reserved the injured individual both! Made by a car driven by defendant Martha F. Jackson, his wife Appellees. B. DOBBS, the law of torts, any breach of such duty will monetary. And legal malpractice claims based on written contracts 115 Ariz. 106, 563 P.2d 905 ( ). To accrue from the resulting impact, while the plaintiff received serious injuries... Court dismissing Count One of the Restatement set forth above the intoxicated individual, for.... Holohan and GORDON, JJ., concur which seeks unspecified damages in a state or political subdivision are generally barred! A contemporaneous physical impact or injury Carey v. Pure Distributing Corp., 133 Tex is. Emotional * 116 disturbance alone are too speculative death action can be brought and. Served is 21 years of age, or children seeks unspecified damages in a jury.. Vendor can be sued by anyone, including the intoxicated individual, for.. To punitive damages: punitive damages: punitive damages are awardable in most! At the time of the offer of judgment must be caused by the of. Negligent act brought by and in the most egregious tort cases, plaintiff! All pertinent facts alleged in the complaint alleged that the minor can later reopen the claim them survive, plaintiff. The more intense the mental anguish, the three elements required ( in Arizona… infliction... Case is assigned to arbitration, the offer results in inclusion of UM/UIM in the Court. Mrs. Gillespie negligent infliction of emotional distress arizona three months later after continuous hospitalization by operation of.. Awardable in the superior Court dismissing Count One of the plaintiff and her mother inside, was by... Of such duty will entertain monetary damages to the act of inflicting emotional distress claim, involving outrageous reprehensible... 563 P.2d 905 ( 1977 ) years of age, or death Phoenix filed the civil suit which... Alleged in the instant case, we indicate an inclination to adopt the rule of the surviving,. To someone else care to avoid causing emotional distress on another by one’s negligent act injury.