 |
 |
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
. . ." Id. (emphasis added). The Court formed this conclusion consistent with the holdings in Green, Bowman and Roch. Id. The Court observed:
In the context of the Bowman rule, therefore, the term "physical" is not used in its ordinary dictionary sense. Instead, it is used to represent that the injury for which recovery is sought is capable of objective determination.
Id. (footnote omitted, emphasis added).
The type of evidence of a mental state resulting in an injury "capable of objective determination" was illustrated by the distress suffered by Muriel Vance. She and Arnold
Vance, married in a religious ceremony, lived together for 18 years and had two children. Then Arnold left Muriel for another woman. She sought a decree awarding her alimony and child support . Arnold opposed the action on the ground that at the time of his marriage to Muriel he had not been divorced from his first wife and, therefore, his marriage to Muriel was void. It appeared that Arnold originally believed that his decree of absolute divorce from his first wife was final, and had told Muriel that he was free to marry her. About one month after their marriage, Arnold discovered that his divorce decree had not become final until after his marriage to Muriel. Arnold never told Muriel that their marriage was a nullity. She did not discover it until Arnold sought to annul the marriage 20 years later.
The evidence at trial was that the disclosure that Muriel's twenty-year marriage was void had a devastating effect on her.
She went into a state of shock, engaged in spontaneous crying and for a period seemed detached and unaware of her own presence. She was unable to function normally, unable to sleep and too embarrassed to socialize. In addition to experiencing symptoms of an ulcer, Muriel suffered an emotional collapse and depression which manifested itself in her external condition, i.e., her significantly deteriorated physical appearance -- unkempt hair, sunken cheeks and dark eyes.
Id. at 501, 408 A.2d 728. We held that this evidence was "legally sufficient to establish symptoms of a mental state evidencing a physical injury within the meaning of the Bowman standard."
Id.
The evidence showed that Muriel suffered an objectively manifested, definite nervous disorder of a magnitude similar to the mental distress established in Green, Bowman, and Roch. . . .
he evidence was sufficient to support a jury finding that Muriel was physically injured as a foreseeable result
of [Arnold's] negligent misrepresentation concerning his marital status.
Id. (footnote omitted).
Arnold argued that because Muriel adduced no medical evidence to support her claim for mental distress, the case should not go to the jury. We observed that although use of medical testimony may be advisable to establish mental distress, such testimony is not always required. Id. at 502-503, 408 A.2d 728. The Court ruled that such testimony was not necessary in the case before it to recover for mental distress in the light of the evidence adduced. Id. The Court also rejected Arnold's claim that the only proper way to show causation is through medical testimony. Id. at 503, 408 A.2d 728. The Court pointed out that it had "permitted plaintiff lay persons to testify to their physical injuries and mental distress without supporting medical testimony." Id., citing to Tully v. Dasher, 250 Md. 424, 244 A.2d 207(1968) (nervousness, headaches, upset stomach). Tully, the Court pointed out, relied on Wilhelm v.
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.
|
|