applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to case involving mental distress resulting from being trapped in a stalled elevator, and rejecting the requirement of physical injury to recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress
How later courts described this case
- applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to case involving mental distress resulting from being trapped in a stalled elevator, and rejecting the requirement of physical injury to recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress
- hospital records and attending psychiatrists’ testimony showed plaintiff suffered acute anxiety after being trapped in elevator
- absent allegation of physical injury, plaintiff cannot prevail on IIED claim unless she demonstrates “emotional distress or mental injury” which “must be medically diagnosable and must be of sufficient severity so as to be medically significant”
- negligent disposal of stillborn infant’s body
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Limited by Jarrett v. Jones, 2008 Mo. LEXIS 142 (2008)
Id. The Court limited its holding to direct victims of a defendant’s negligence, expressly declining to discuss the standard to be applied in bystander eases, where the plaintiff claims emotional distress solely from observing injury to a third party caused by defendant’s negligence.
The opinion
DONNELLY, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent for at least two reasons:
(1) In my view, this case does not demonstrate appropriate circumstances for judicial abrogation of the “impact rule”. “The issue seems suited for legislative action.” Epple v. Western Auto Supply Co., 557 S.W.2d 253, 254 (Mo. banc 1977); and
(2) The view of the majority is that “logic and practicality” argue for abandonment of the “impact rule” in favor of a “medically significant” rule. The “logic and practicality” of such action elude me. What does “medically significant” mean in a courtroom?