Robb v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co.

Supreme Court of Delaware · Torts

TortsNegligenceEmotional distressImpact ruleZone of dangerimpact rulezone of dangerfright

Facts

The plaintiff drove toward her home over a private lane that crossed the defendant's railroad right-of-way, where the defendant had negligently allowed a rut about a foot deep to form at the grade crossing. Her car stalled with its rear wheels lodged in the rut, and while she tried unsuccessfully for several minutes to move it, she saw the defendant's train approaching. She jumped from the car and fled only seconds before the locomotive struck and demolished the vehicle, while she stood within a few feet of the track and was covered with soot and dirt but was not physically touched. She alleged that the fright and nervous shock caused physical injuries, including cessation of lactation and other impairment affecting her ability to care for her infant child and continue her work.

Issue

May a plaintiff recover for physical injuries resulting from fright caused by the defendant's negligence when the plaintiff was within the immediate zone of physical danger but suffered no contemporaneous bodily impact? More specifically, should Delaware adopt or reject the impact rule in such circumstances?

Rule

Where negligence proximately causes fright to a person within the immediate area or zone of physical danger created by that negligence, and that fright in turn proximately produces physical consequences that would be compensable if resulting from bodily injury, the plaintiff may recover even though there was no contemporaneous bodily impact.

🔒

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 Wilmington, a delivery driver for Brant Street Logistics negligently backs a box truck onto a sidewalk while texting. Nora Kim jumps behind a fire hydrant as the truck misses her by inches and smashes into a storefront. She is not touched, but alleges that the terror triggered a severe cardiac episode requiring hospitalization.

If Nora proves negligence and medical causation, which is the most accurate statement about her claim?

Explanation. The majority rejected the impact rule. Recovery is permitted when negligence proximately causes fright to a person within the immediate area or zone of physical danger, and that fright in turn proximately produces physical consequences that would be compensable if caused by bodily injury. Nora was allegedly in immediate peril and suffered physical consequences, so the absence of impact does not bar recovery. (Derived from Robb v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co. (n.d.).)