holding that a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim requires a showing that the defendant acted negligently and that this negligence resulted in either a “physical impact” or “serious emotional distress causing physical injury or illness”
How later courts described this case
- holding that a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim requires a showing that the defendant acted negligently and that this negligence resulted in either a “physical impact” or “serious emotional distress causing physical injury or illness”
- recognizing that the primary implied assumption of risk doctrine “goes to the initial determination of whether the defendant’s legal duty encompasses the risk encountered by the plaintiff”
- concluding also that “the district court correctly found 14 that the additional minimal therapy undergone by Barmettler did not satisfy the physical 15 injury “or impact” requirement of Chowdhry [v. NLVH, Inc., 851 P.2d 459 (1993)]”
- noting that one liable for negligent misrepresentation must have failed to exercise reasonable care with regard to the information communicated and that one hable for fraudulent misrepresentation generally must have communicated information knowing its falsity
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Shearing, J.,
concurring:
I agree that the district court’s order granting summary judgment should be affirmed. I address the dissent position that offering a drug rehabilitation program can change an at-will employment to contractual employment. Neither the language of the employee handbook nor the drug and alcohol policy, separately or together, make such a change. The employee’s status is expressly “at-will.” Furthermore, the public policy considerations are particularly compelling for not penalizing companies which do institute drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs. The law of this state should encourage such action. It is in the public interest, as well as in Reno Air’s interest, that employees who have substance abuse problems be helped to overcome those problems. However, it is also in the public interest that Reno Air be free to terminate its employees in critical positions and not be required to maintain them in their positions even when there is only a suspicion that they cannot perform their duties safely and effectively. Reno Air is free to enter into employment contracts, but we should not lightly hold that they have inadvertently done so.