 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Belcher v. T. Rowe Price Foundation Inc.3/25/1993
as falling."
Id. The Court noted:
When fear exists, the nervous and physical reactions, although probably differing in degree, are fundamentally identical, whether the fear is purely subjective, as when it
is for the victim's own safety, or is objective, as when the fear is for the victim's wife, child, relative, friend, or even a stranger.
Id. The Court concluded: " f a party suffers an injury , as loss of health, of mind, or of life, through fear of safety for self [or members of his family], a recovery may be had for the negligent act of another . . . ." Id. (emphasis added). The Court observed that
the nervous shock or fright sustained by [Williams] was based on reasonable grounds for apprehension of an injury to and his children, and was one which naturally produced physical deterioration as distinguished from those shocks which primarily work on the moral nature, to the exclusion of actual physical injury.
Id. at 402, 165 A. 182. The Court read Green, Harris, Hobbs and Roch as having
settled the principle that a plaintiff can sustain an action for damages for nervous shock or injury caused, without physical impact, by fright arising directly from defendant's negligent act or omission, and resulting in some clearly apparent and substantial physical injury, as manifested by an external condition or by symptoms clearly indicative of a resultant pathological, physiological, or mental state.
Id. at 404, 165 A. 182(emphasis added).
Mahnke, 197 Md. 61, 77 A.2d 923, applied the rulings in Green and Bowman. It noted:
At the beginning of this century, the numerical weight of authority in this country supported the rule that a plaintiff cannot recover for nervous affections unaccompanied by contemporaneous physical injury .
197 Md. at 69, 77 A.2d 923. But it reminded, citing Green:
In 1909, however, this Court adopted the rule that where the wrongful act complained of is the proximate cause of the injury and the injury ought to have been contemplated in the light of all the circumstances as a
natural and probable cause thereof, the case should be left to the jury.
Id. In Mahnke, as in Bowman, there were no physical injuries inflicted, only severe psychological trauma. Her physiological harm was, as set out in Bowman, no more than a physical result which ordinarily flows from a severe mental state.
In any event, Vance, 286 Md. 490, 408 A.2d 728, clarified the matter. One of the questions presented in Vance was whether, under the "physical injury " test set forth in Bowman, damages may be recovered for emotional distress resulting from a negligent misrepresentation. Id. at 492, 408 A.2d 728. The Court discussed Green, Roch and Bowman and cited to Mahnke. The Court concluded:
We think it clear that Bowman provides that the requisite "physical injury " resulting from emotional distress may be proved in one of four ways. It appears that these alternatives were formulated with the overall purpose in mind of requiring objective evidence to guard against feigned claims.
286 Md. at 500, 408 A.2d 728. "The first three categories," the Court explained, "pertain to manifestations of a physical injury through evidence of an external condition or by symptoms of a pathological or physiological state." Id. The fourth category, however, permits proof of a "physical injury" by evidence indicating a " mental state.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|