Abstract
Increasingly, and in a surprising variety of circumstances, plaintiffs have begun to assert claims for "negligent" infliction of emotional distress. In this Article, Professor Crump demonstrates that recognition of a general-purpose negligent infliction claim would make superfluous the established cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress and would destroy the limits that the law has developed to confine it. He concludes that negligence should not suffice for recovery of pure emotional distress damages unless the claimant can demonstrate a traditional basis for the establishment of a duty, in the form of a contractual relationship, an independent tort, or a properly limited bystander claim.
How to Cite
34 Ariz. L. Rev. 439 (1992)
4
Views
2
Downloads