Falzone v. Busch

Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1965 · Torts

TortsNegligenceEmotional distressnegligencefrightphysical impactproximate causebodily injury

Facts

Charles Falzone alleged that he was standing in a field next to the roadway when the defendant negligently drove an automobile that struck and injured him. Mabel Falzone alleged that she was seated in her husband's lawfully parked automobile near the place where he was struck when the defendant's automobile veered across the highway and headed toward her, coming so close that she feared for her own safety. She alleged that, as a direct result of that fright, she became ill and required medical attention. Her claim was based on fear for her own safety, not apprehension of harm to her husband.

Issue

May a plaintiff recover in negligence for bodily injury or sickness resulting from fear for her own safety caused by a defendant's negligence when the plaintiff was placed in danger by that negligence, even though there was no physical impact?

Rule

Where negligence causes fright from a reasonable fear of immediate personal injury, and that fright is adequately shown to have resulted in substantial bodily injury or sickness, the injured person may recover even without physical impact, if the bodily injury or sickness would be proper elements of damage had they resulted from direct physical injury rather than fright. If the fright does not cause substantial bodily injury or sickness, it is too lacking in seriousness and too speculative to warrant liability.

🔒

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 Cleveland, Nora Kim was walking along the curb when Devin Cross negligently ran a delivery van through a red light and onto the shoulder, stopping inches from her. Nora jumped back unharmed, but within hours developed severe chest pain and later produced medical evidence that the episode triggered a serious cardiac condition requiring hospitalization.

If Nora sues Devin for negligence, which is the best statement of the likely result under the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority abandoned the impact requirement. A plaintiff may recover when the defendant's negligence causes fright from a reasonable fear of immediate personal injury, and that fright is adequately shown to have resulted in substantial bodily injury or sickness proximately caused by the negligence. Slight impact is unnecessary, and fright alone is insufficient.