# Shuamber v. Henderson

> Indiana Supreme Court · October 9, 1991 · 579 N.E.2d 452

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9743700

## Case

- **Full name:** Katherine SHUAMBER and Gail Shuamber, Appellants, (Plaintiffs Below), v. John HENDERSON, and American Employers Insurance Company (Intervenor), Appellees, (Defendants Below)
- **Court:** Indiana Supreme Court
- **Decided:** October 9, 1991
- **Citations:** 579 N.E.2d 452; 1991 Ind. LEXIS 194; 1991 WL 202303
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Givan
- **Judges:** Krahulik, Shepard, Debruler, Dickson, Givan
- **Cited by:** 149 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled by Groves v. Taylor, 2000 Ind. LEXIS 535 (2000).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9743700

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that “[w]hen . . . a plaintiff sustains a direct impact by the negligence of another and, by virtue of that direct involvement sustains an emotional trauma which is serious in nature and of a kind and extent normally expected to occur in a reasonable person, . . . such…
- holding that ”[w]hen ... a plaintiff sustains a direct impact by the negligence of another and, by virtue of that direct involvement sustains emotional trauma which is serious in nature and of a kind and extent normally expected to occur in a reasonable person, ... such a plai…
- holding a plaintiff is entitled to maintain an action to recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress where she “sustains a direct impact by the negligence of another and, by virtue of that direct involvement sustains an emotional trauma which is serious in nature an…
- holding that a plaintiff who heard pounding on the door, which resulted in alleged emotional distress, could not maintain an action under the doctrine of negligent infliction of emotional distress because plaintiff did not sustain a direct physical impact
- holding that when a plaintiff sustains a direct impact by the negligence of another and sustains emotional trauma as a result thereof, the plaintiff is entitled to maintain an action to recover for that emotional trauma regardless of physical injury

## Opinion text

ON CIVIL PETITION TO TRANSFER
GIVAN, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in this case.
The majority correctly states that for many years the law in Indiana precluded recovery for emotional injury due to the loss of a loved one. The Court of Appeals opinion, Shuamber v. Henderson (1990), Ind.App., 563 N.E.2d 1314 , also correctly states this proposition of law.
Although the majority is correct in stating that the impact rule is part of the case law of Indiana, thus subject to change by the judiciary, this nevertheless is a field which, as recognized by the majority opinion, has been entered by the legislature.
The majority goes on to state that this Court should change the rule "when the rationale for the rule is no longer valid." However, I see no rationalization within the majority opinion which demonstrates any factual changes in our society which would render the rule "no longer valid." As recognized by the majority, the reason for the rule in the first place is that emotional trauma, under the circumstances of this case, although without doubt existing, is so nebulous and differing from person to person that the fixing of damages by a jury can only be a wild guess and thus subject to extreme variations from case to case.
If the legislature would see fit to provide for such damages, so be it. I find no justification however in the majority opinion for this Court to create such a remedy.
The trial court should be affirmed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9743700. Public record. Not legal advice.