 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Williams v. Stewart3/22/2005
entation; (3) Defendants' intent to deceive and induce reliance on the misrepresentation; and (4) detrimental reliance on the misrepresentation. See Unser, 86 N.M. at 653-54, 526 P.2d at 795-96. As to damages, UJI 13-1633 simply states, " party is liable for damages proximately caused by fraudulent misrepresentation," and Plaintiffs allege, " s a direct and proximate result of the fraud, laintiffs and the members of the class have suffered damages, including loss, serious anguish, severe mental and emotional distress, pain, and suffering."
{46} Numerous decisions from many states have already held, in varying contexts, with various limitations, that mental or emotional distress damages are recoverable in a fraud action. See Steven J. Gaynor, Annotation, Fraud Actions: Right to Recover for Mental or Emotional Distress, 11 A.L.R.5th, 88 (1993). One approach to balancing the various interests is expressed by Andrew L. Merit, Damages for Emotional Distress in Fraud Litigation: Dignitary Torts in a Commercial Society, 42 Vand. L. Rev. 1, 1 (1989). Even the authority relied upon by the majority states, " ases involving mishandling of dead bodies have long recognized emotional harm damages, fraud or no fraud." Dobbs, supra, ยง 9.2(4), at 565. Professor Dobbs concludes his discussion of this issue by stating,
There are assuredly cases in which some kind of intangible-harm damages should be awarded when the defendant's misconduct consists in part of fraudulent representations. Given the plenteous supply of tort doctrine for redress of emotional harm claims, however, there may be little or no need to add such a claim to fraud cases, where it would be quite likely to become a routine allegation. When it is coupled with punitive damages, it may, in addition, tend to weigh the misconduct twice. In any event, if emotional harm damages are to be permitted in fraud cases, it would be desirable to identify particular elements that especially justify such recovery. This might be done most readily by recognizing that the emotional harm recovery should be awarded when the elements of some other tort, such as intentional infliction of distress, can be shown, and that fraud itself would in some cases tend to show some of the elements of the intentional infliction tort.
Id.
{47} Since I am unable to agree with the majority that mental or emotional damages are never recoverable in any fraud case under any circumstances, I respectfully dissent from that portion of the opinion affirming dismissal of the fraud claims. In all other respects I agree with the majority.
MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge
|