A prescription for mental distress: the principles of psychosomatic medicine with the physical manifestation requirement in N.I.E.D. (Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress) cases
In March of 1998, a Connecticut jury awarded $400,000 under a claim for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (“N.I.E.D”) to an employee who had only lost his job. The employee had been subject to unnecessary internal investigation, and his employment was terminated as a result of this investig...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | American journal of law & medicine 2000-12, Vol.26 (4), p.401-438 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | In March of 1998, a Connecticut jury awarded $400,000 under a claim for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (“N.I.E.D”) to an employee who had only lost his job. The employee had been subject to unnecessary internal investigation, and his employment was terminated as a result of this investigation. In December of 1992, a North Carolina jury awarded only $100,000 for N.I.E.D. damages to parents who had lost their nine month-old infant. The parents actually witnessed the death of their infant, who died from swelling of the brain caused by improper administration of intravenous fluids. Both of these awards were meant to compensate plaintiffs for the mental distress caused by the defendants' negligent conduct. Yet considering the circumstances of these two cases, one wonders whether the jurors were really able to evaluate the nature and extent of the plaintiffs' mental distress and, more importantly, what kind of evidence the jurors considered to make their determination. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0098-8588 2375-835X |
DOI: | 10.1017/S0098858800011229 |