Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Ward v. West Jersey & Seashore Railroad Co.

New Jersey Supreme Court · 1900 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureTortsNegligenceEmotional distressProximate causenegligencefrightmental disturbance

Facts

The plaintiff alleged that while driving on a public highway across the defendant's railroad crossing, he was allowed to enter the crossing without warning despite an approaching train. He further alleged that although the gates were raised when he entered, the defendant's gatekeeper carelessly lowered them before he could fully pass over. According to the declaration, this exposed him to great danger of being run down and killed by the train. He claimed that because of the danger and resulting shock, he was frightened, paralyzed, and otherwise injured.

Issue

In a negligence action, can a plaintiff recover when he suffered no actual personal injury from the defendant's act, but experienced fright from threatened danger and then physical suffering as a consequence of that mental disturbance?

Rule

A defendant in negligence is liable only for the natural and proximate results of the negligent act. Therefore, there can be no recovery for bodily injury caused by mere fright or mental disturbance, where no actual personal injury was inflicted by the defendant's negligent act.

🔒

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 Toledo, Olivia Mercer was walking across a parking lot when a delivery van owned by Lakefront Parcel Services negligently sped toward her and stopped inches away. The van never touched her, but she fainted from terror and later developed persistent tremors that her complaint alleges were caused solely by the fright.

If Lakefront Parcel Services files a motion attacking the legal sufficiency of the complaint, how should the court rule under the governing doctrine?

Explanation. The majority rule here is that negligence liability extends only to natural and proximate consequences of the negligent act, and there is no recovery for bodily injury caused by mere fright or mental disturbance when the defendant's act inflicted no actual personal injury. Because Olivia alleges no impact or bodily injury from the van itself, only fright followed by physical symptoms, the complaint fails to state a negligence claim under this doctrine.