Camper v. Minor

Supreme Court of Tennessee · Torts

TortsNegligent Infliction of Emotional DistressFamily Purpose DoctrineNIEDemotional distressgeneral negligenceserious or severe injuryexpert proof

Facts

Camper was driving a cement truck when Jennifer Taylor suddenly pulled into his path from a stop-controlled intersection, causing a collision in which Taylor was killed instantly. Camper got out of his truck and saw Taylor's body in the wreckage from close range. He alleged no substantial physical injury from the collision, only emotional and mental injuries, including post-traumatic disorder, sleep loss, crying, and depression, and he testified that his distress resulted solely from seeing Taylor's body rather than from fear for his own safety. Taylor was driving a car owned by Sharon Barnett, who admitted in her answer that the car was being used for a family purpose.

Issue

May a plaintiff who suffered no substantial physical injury and did not fear for his own safety pursue a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim based on emotional trauma from the accident and its immediate aftermath? Also, does the family purpose doctrine remain valid after Tennessee's adoption of comparative fault and the limitation of joint and several liability?

Rule

Negligent infliction of emotional distress claims in Tennessee are to be analyzed under ordinary negligence principles rather than under the rigid physical manifestation or injury rule. To avoid summary judgment, the plaintiff must present material evidence of duty, breach, injury or loss, causation in fact, and proximate cause; recovery is limited to serious or severe emotional injury, defined as injury such that a reasonable person, normally constituted, would be unable to adequately cope with the mental stress engendered by the circumstances, and the claimed injury or impairment must be supported by expert medical or scientific proof. The family purpose doctrine remains valid because it is a form of vicarious liability based on an imputed agency relationship, not a form of joint and several liability for independent tortfeasors.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Chattanooga, Lena Ortiz was stopped at a red light when a delivery van negligently sideswiped her car at low speed. She suffered no bodily injury, but after stepping out she immediately saw that a pedestrian struck by the van had died and later developed debilitating post-traumatic symptoms documented by a psychiatrist.

If the van company moves for summary judgment solely on the ground that Lena cannot recover because she had no physical injury, how should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority rejected the rigid physical manifestation or injury rule as the test for a prima facie negligent infliction of emotional distress claim. Such claims are analyzed under general negligence principles, with recovery limited to serious or severe emotional injury supported by expert medical or scientific proof. A motion attacking only the absence of physical injury does not defeat the claim under the new framework. (Derived from Camper v. Minor (n.d.).)