Kennedy v. McKesson Co.

New York Court of Appeals · Torts

TortsNegligent infliction of emotional distressDamagesemotional distressdirect vs consequential injurypecuniary lossdutybystander rule

Facts

Plaintiff, a dentist, bought an anesthetic machine from defendants and later delivered it to them for overhaul and adjustment. The complaint alleged that when the machine was returned, defendants had reversed the color-coded decals for oxygen and nitrous oxide and had failed to install, or tell plaintiff they could install, different-sized connectors that would have prevented improper connection. While intending to administer 100% oxygen to a patient after a dental procedure, plaintiff instead administered 100% nitrous oxide, and the patient died. Plaintiff alleged that resulting civil and criminal proceedings caused mental ill health, damaged his reputation, and forced him to withdraw permanently from practice.

Issue

When defendants allegedly breached a duty owed directly to plaintiff in repairing his anesthetic machine, may plaintiff recover both pecuniary losses and emotional-distress damages after the breach caused him to administer the wrong gas to a patient, resulting in the patient's death? More specifically, is plaintiff's claimed emotional injury direct or merely consequential under New York law?

Rule

A plaintiff who states a cause of action in his own right based on a breach of duty owed directly by defendant to plaintiff may recover pecuniary losses caused by that breach. But damages for emotional injury are recoverable only when the emotional harm is a direct result of the breach, not when the emotional harm is merely consequential to physical injury or death suffered by a third person.

🔒

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 Albany, Lena Ortiz hired Hudson Valley MedTech Services to recalibrate a fetal heart monitor used in her obstetrics clinic. Because the company mislabeled the monitor's controls, Lena misread the device during a delivery, and the newborn suffered fatal oxygen deprivation; Lena later shut down her practice after severe anxiety and a loss of patients.

If Lena sues Hudson Valley MedTech Services for negligence, which damages claim is most likely permitted under the governing rule?

Explanation. When defendant breaches a duty owed directly to the plaintiff, the plaintiff may sue in her own right for pecuniary loss caused by that breach. But emotional injury is compensable only if it is a direct result of the breach itself, not if it is consequential to physical injury or death suffered by a third person. Here, the service company allegedly owed Lena a direct duty in repairing the equipment, so her lost income and similar economic losses may be recoverable; her anxiety stemming from the newborn's death is consequential and not recoverable. (Derived from Kennedy v. McKesson Co. (n.d.).)