Mitchell v. Rochester Railway Co.

New York Supreme Court, General Term · Torts

TortsNegligenceProximate CausePhysical Injury from Frightnegligenceproximate causefrightmental shock

Facts

The plaintiff was standing on a crosswalk waiting to board one of the defendant's streetcars when another of the defendant's horse cars came down a steep grade at such speed that the driver could not stop it in time. The horses swerved and came so close that their heads were on either side of the plaintiff and she was almost run down, though there was no impact. The fright and excitement rendered her unconscious, and she later suffered a miscarriage and prolonged sickness. Physicians testified that the mental shock was a sufficient cause of her subsequent physical ailments.

Issue

Whether a negligence action may lie when the defendant's negligent conduct causes fright or mental shock without physical impact, but that shock directly produces a serious physical injury. More specifically, whether the absence of an actual blow bars recovery as a matter of law.

Rule

No action lies for purely mental suffering or fright unaccompanied by physical injury. But where a physical injury is the natural result of the defendant's negligence, and that injury proceeds directly from a mental shock caused by the negligent act, the defendant is liable if the injury can be traced to the negligence through an unbroken, continuous sequence without an independent intervening cause; actual impact is not required.

🔒

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, Nora Kim was standing lawfully on a sidewalk waiting to cross when a delivery wagon owned by Hudson Crest Laundry careened downhill because its driver had failed to control the horses. The wagon missed Nora by inches, and she immediately fainted; doctors later testified that the shock directly caused a severe internal illness that kept her bedridden for weeks.

If Nora sues Hudson Crest Laundry for negligence, which is the best argument for allowing the case to go to the jury?

Explanation. The majority rule permits recovery where negligence causes fright or mental shock that directly produces actual bodily injury, even without impact, so long as the injury is the natural and probable consequence of the negligence and no independent intervening cause breaks the chain. Here, the evidence would permit a jury to find that the near collision caused shock and that the shock directly caused a serious physical ailment. (Derived from Mitchell v. Rochester Railway Co. (n.d.).)