## Facts

- A critically injured, unconscious accident victim, Thomas H. Armstrong, was brought to Paoli Memorial Hospital.
- An emergency-room employee, attempting to notify next of kin quickly, located a phone listing for “Thomas Armstrong” in Chester, Pennsylvania and called Dawn Armstrong, whose husband was Thomas J. Armstrong.
- The hospital told Dawn that her husband had been in a serious accident and instructed her to come immediately.
- At the hospital, Dawn was not permitted to see the patient; she met with a neurosurgeon and viewed x-rays showing a “crushed cranium.”
- More than an hour later, Dawn’s sister saw the driver’s license and determined the injured patient was Thomas H. Armstrong, not Dawn’s husband.
- Dawn experienced immediate physical effects upon learning of the mistake and later reported depression, nightmares, insomnia, and persistent fears about her family’s safety, requiring counseling.
- Dawn and her husband sued the hospital for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
- The trial court dismissed IIED and punitive damages at the close of testimony; the jury returned a $1,000 verdict for Dawn on NIED.
- Post-verdict, the hospital sought judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV); plaintiffs sought a new trial on damages as inadequate.
- The trial court denied JNOV and granted a new trial limited to damages; the hospital appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a person mistakenly told that a close relative was gravely injured states a legally cognizable bystander NIED claim when she was not at the accident and had no relationship to the actual victim.
2. Whether the trial court could order a new trial limited to damages after a jury awarded $1,000 on an NIED claim.

## Decision

- The Superior Court reversed the trial court’s post-verdict orders.
- The court held the hospital was entitled to JNOV because the plaintiff did not meet Pennsylvania’s bystander NIED foreseeability requirements.
- The court vacated the damages-only new trial order because, absent liability as a matter of law, there was no basis for any damages retrial.

## Legal Principles

- Pennsylvania bystander NIED recovery requires the plaintiff to be within a legally defined class of foreseeable plaintiffs, typically evaluated by proximity to the accident, contemporaneous sensory observation, and a close relationship to the injured victim.
- Physical manifestations of distress may be required, but they do not substitute for the bystander foreseeability requirements.
- Where the plaintiff cannot satisfy the bystander NIED elements as a matter of law, JNOV is proper and post-verdict relief limited to damages is unavailable.

## Conclusion

The court held that, despite severe distress with physical manifestations caused by the hospital’s misidentification, the plaintiff was not a foreseeable bystander under Pennsylvania NIED doctrine because she did not witness the accident, was not near it, and had no relationship to the actual victim; the verdict could not stand and judgment was entered for the hospital.


Armstrong v. Paoli Mem'l Hosp., 430 Pa. Super. 36, 633 A.2d 605 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993)