Under New York law, how is "negligent infliction of emotional distress" treated?

Under New York law, how is "negligent infliction of emotional distress" treated?

• A. Claims are allowed if the plaintiff was in the zone of danger or witnessed an injury to a close relative
• B. Claims require direct physical injury to the plaintiff
• C. Claims are not permitted in civil law
• D. Claims must be filed within one year of occurrence

Answer: (A)

In New York, "negligent infliction of emotional distress" is recognized primarily under two circumstances: when the plaintiff is in the "zone of danger" of physical harm or when the plaintiff witnesses an injury to a close relative. This approach emphasizes the connection between the emotional distress experienced and the potential for physical harm, directly linking the distress to a scenario where the plaintiff was near danger or directly involved as a bystander in a traumatic event. This focus on the "zone of danger" concept allows for claims where individuals are emotionally affected by witnessing dangerous situations or accidents that pose an immediate risk to themselves or their loved ones. The recognition of claims stemming from witnessing harm to close relatives acknowledges the deeper emotional ties and the impact of such experiences. In contrast, the requirement for direct physical injury, the total barring of claims in civil law, and the imposition of a one-year filing deadline do not accurately reflect the standing legal principles regarding negligent infliction of emotional distress in New York. These points misrepresent the legal framework and nuances that exist specifically for this type of claim.

In New York, "negligent infliction of emotional distress" is recognized primarily under two circumstances: when the plaintiff is in the "zone of danger" of physical harm or when the plaintiff witnesses an injury to a close relative. This approach emphasizes the connection between the emotional distress experienced and the potential for physical harm, directly linking the distress to a scenario where the plaintiff was near danger or directly involved as a bystander in a traumatic event.

This focus on the "zone of danger" concept allows for claims where individuals are emotionally affected by witnessing dangerous situations or accidents that pose an immediate risk to themselves or their loved ones. The recognition of claims stemming from witnessing harm to close relatives acknowledges the deeper emotional ties and the impact of such experiences.

In contrast, the requirement for direct physical injury, the total barring of claims in civil law, and the imposition of a one-year filing deadline do not accurately reflect the standing legal principles regarding negligent infliction of emotional distress in New York. These points misrepresent the legal framework and nuances that exist specifically for this type of claim.