Citation
Publication Date:
Format:
Bibliography:
A patchwork of liability rules that would appear puzzling to an unschooled, outside observer characterizes the overall design of tort doctrine addressing intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and claims of emotional harm of more long-standing vintage. Whether these rules hang together in a satisfying way is a principal question addressed in this essay.
My discussion is organized around the larger pragmatic and normative policy considerations that run through the cross-currents of doctrine, making reference along the way to the superstructure of rules and limitations that rise above the surface rather than treating the rules as a focal point. In a following section, I offer a brief discussion of emotional distress associated with protracted loss of companionship or anxiety – as contrasted with claims focused on immediate reactions to unexpected, traumatic events – to consider whether these scenarios make out a special case for recovery. Finally, I offer a concluding thought on the notion of “deserving victims” in emotional distress settings.
Other publications by this author
- The John G. Fleming Lecture: A Brief History of Accident Law – Tort and the Administrative State
- The Vaccine No-Fault Act: An Overview
- Tort Law and Alternatives: Cases and Materials, 9th ed.
- The Legacy of New York Times v. Sullivan: Time for a Reassessment?
- Harms from Exposure to Toxic Substances: The Limits of Liability Law
- The Pervasive Role of Uncertainty in Tort Law: Rights and Remedies
- Tort as a Litigation Lottery: A Misconceived Metaphor
- Territorial Claims in the Domain of Accident Law: Conflicting Conceptions of Tort Preemption
- Tobacco Control Strategies: Past Efficacy and Future Promise
- Dissembling and Disclosing: Physician Responsibility on the Frontiers of Tort Law
Author
- Robert L. Rabin
- Stanford Law School
- rrabin@stanford.edu
- 650 723.3073