Under Arizona law, an NIED claim is available where (i) the plaintiff witnesses an injury to another person or (ii) the plaintiff suffers emotional distress from an event that endangered plaintiff but did not physically injure her. See Quinn v. Turner, 745 P.2d 972, 973 (Ariz.Ct.App. 1987). Plaintiff does not allege she witnessed an injury to another person, so her NIED claim falls into the latter category.
Absent physical impact or injury, however, mental anguish must manifest physically to be recoverable. Keck, 122 Ariz. at 115; Quinn v. Turner, 155 Ariz. 225, 226 (App. 1987). Long-term physical illness or mental disturbance may also "constitute[] sufficient bodily harm to support a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress."
¶7 To establish a NIED claim, a plaintiff must have (1) witnessed an injury to a closely related person, (2) suffered mental anguish manifested as a physical injury, and (3) been within the zone of danger so as to be subjected to an unreasonable risk of bodily harm created by the defendant. Quinn v. Turner, 155 Ariz. 225, 227 (App. 1987); see also Keck v. Jackson, 122 Ariz. 114, 115-16 (1979). Here, the Odriozolas did not meet their burden of establishing these elements.
A classic example is that of the reckless driver who speeds by a pedestrian, missing her by only inches. See, e.g., Quinn v. Turner, 155 Ariz. 225, 226, 745 P.2d 972 (Ct.App.1987). But under District of Columbia caselaw a plaintiff must be in actual physical danger to recover.
A classic example is that of the reckless driver who speeds by a pedestrian, missing her by only inches. See, e.g., Quinn v. Turner, 155 Ariz. 225, 226 (Ct. App. 1987). But under District of Columbia caselaw a plaintiff must be in actual physical danger to recover.
” Kretsch v. Barton, No. CV-23-00411-PHX-ROS, 2024 WL 962181, at *8 (D. Ariz. Mar. 6, 2024) (citing Quinn v. Turner, 155 Ariz. 225, 226 (Ct. App. 1987)). Plaintiff alleges neither situation.
Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2014) ("A claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress requires proof that a defendant's conduct caused the plaintiff to suffer emotional distress that manifested itself as physical injury from either witnessing an injury to a closely related person or suffering a threat to her own personal security.") (citing Keck v. Jackson, 593 P.2d 668, 669-70 (Ariz. 1979)); Quinn v. Turner, 745 P.2d 972, 973 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987)); Rev. Ariz. Jury Instr. (Civil) 6th, Negligence 9 (requiring the plaintiff to show that the defendant's negligence created an unreasonable risk of bodily harm and was a cause of emotional distress to the plaintiff). The Court accordingly will grant summary judgment on Plaintiff's negligent infliction claim only to the extent it is based on an alleged failure to warn.
In such cases, the plaintiff may not be injured by the crash but the fright of the situation may cause ongoing emotional trauma leading to physical symptoms. See, e.g., Quinn v. Turner, 155 Ariz. 225, 226, 745 P.2d 972, 973 (Ct. App. 1987). Ramsell's alleged failure to protect Plaintiffs' collection did not "create an unreasonable risk of bodily harm" to Berger.
But, contrary to Defendant's assertions, a plaintiff does not have to witness an injury to another to state a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Quinn v. Turner, 155 Ariz. 225, 745 P.2d 972, 973 (Ariz.Ct.App.1987) (“[W]e reject the defendants' contention that a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress exists only where the plaintiff witnesses an injury to another person.”). A cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress also exists if a plaintiff's shock or mental anguish developed solely from a threat to the plaintiff's personal security without witnessing an injury to another person.
Zone of danger has been defined as "defendant's negligence must have created an unreasonable risk of bodily harm" to plaintiff. Quinn v. Turner, 745 P.2d 972, 974 (1987). Plaintiff has failed to establish that Defendant Brown was negligent.