Quill v. Trans World Airlines

Minnesota Court of Appeals · Torts

TortsNegligent infliction of emotional distressEmotional distress damagesEvidenceTrial procedurenegligent infliction of emotional distresszone of dangerphysical symptoms

Facts

Plaintiff was a passenger on TWA flight 841 when the plane suddenly rolled over and plunged downward in a tailspin for about 40 seconds, with intense shaking and approximately 6 G's of force, before the pilots regained control shortly before impact. Plaintiff believed his death was certain during the descent and then endured about 40 more minutes of shaking and emergency procedures before an emergency landing in Detroit. Since the incident, he has continued to fly for work but on about half of his flights experiences anxiety, memories of the event, sweaty hands, adrenaline surges, and elevated pulse and blood pressure, and on some occasions has delayed travel because of his fears. He did not seek medical treatment.

Issue

Did plaintiff make out a prima facie case for negligent infliction of emotional distress where he was plainly in the zone of danger, suffered no contemporaneous physical impact, but later experienced recurring anxiety accompanied by physical symptoms? Also, did the trial court commit reversible error in its evidentiary and procedural rulings or in failing to address improper closing argument sua sponte?

Rule

Under Minnesota's zone of danger rule, a plaintiff may recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress without contemporaneous physical injury if the plaintiff was in personal physical danger caused by the defendant's negligence and the distress is accompanied by physical symptoms sufficient to assure the claim is genuine. The severe-emotional-distress standard used for intentional infliction of emotional distress does not apply to negligent infliction claims.

🔒

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.

During a sightseeing boat tour off Seattle, a captain negligently steers directly toward a rocky jetty before pulling away at the last moment. Nora Kim is not struck by anything, but afterward she experiences recurring panic on boats accompanied by sweaty palms and a racing pulse.

Under the governing rule, does Nora have the strongest argument for recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress?

Explanation. A plaintiff may recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress without contemporaneous impact if the plaintiff was in the zone of danger and the distress is accompanied by physical symptoms sufficient to assure the claim is genuine. Modest symptoms such as sweaty hands and a racing pulse may suffice when the event itself strongly guarantees genuineness.