## Facts

- Bryan and Jennifer Cook were passengers on a flight from Indianapolis to New York operated by Atlantic Coast Airlines; Delta handled ticketing; Globe Security Services provided airport security.
- While boarding, the Cooks observed a passenger (Frederic Girard) behaving erratically and appearing impaired; he had been briefly detained by security but was allowed to board.
- After boarding the 32-seat aircraft, Girard attempted to sit near the cockpit, repeatedly used call buttons/switches, and disregarded seating and seatbelt instructions.
- Mr. Cook warned the flight attendant that Girard seemed like a security threat; the attendant acknowledged concern and kept Girard seated in the rear to monitor him.
- In flight, Girard lit a cigarette, refused initial instructions to stop, then stood and shouted at the flight attendant; passengers confronted him.
- The Cooks reported hearing references to “World Trade Center,” “Americans,” and “New York City,” intensifying their fear in the post-9/11 context.
- An airline employee calmed Girard; the captain diverted to Cleveland, where Girard was arrested; the flight later continued to New York.
- The Cooks alleged severe emotional distress (including fear of imminent death and later anxiety about flying) but sought no medical or psychological treatment.
- To satisfy Indiana’s negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) “modified impact rule,” the Cooks alleged impacts including breathing second-hand smoke and feeling vibrations from Girard’s stomping, plus stress-related bodily reactions (e.g., rapid heartbeat, sweating, trembling).

## Issues

1. Whether the Cooks’ asserted “impacts” (smoke inhalation, vibrations, and stress-related bodily reactions) satisfied Indiana’s modified impact rule for NIED.
2. If any impact was slight or tenuous, whether the claimed emotional distress was sufficiently genuine and non-speculative to be compensable.

## Decision

- The Indiana Supreme Court reversed the denial of summary judgment and entered judgment for the defendants.
- The court assumed arguendo that some minimal impact might exist but held the Cooks’ emotional distress damages were non-compensable because the alleged distress was speculative under the modified impact rule.
- The court rejected the lower courts’ conclusion that the alleged contacts and “constructive impacts” permitted NIED recovery on these facts.

## Legal Principles

- Indiana’s modified impact rule requires a claimant seeking NIED damages to show a direct physical impact resulting from another’s negligence.
- When the physical impact is slight or the evidence of impact is tenuous, the court evaluates whether the alleged emotional distress is likely speculative, exaggerated, fictitious, or unforeseeable.
- Ordinary physiological reactions to fear or stress do not substitute for the rule’s requirement of a qualifying, negligence-caused physical impact.
- Transient fear and anxiety, without objective evidence of lasting impairment or treatment, may be insufficient to establish non-speculative compensable emotional distress where the alleged impact is minimal.

## Conclusion

Indiana’s modified impact rule barred the Cooks’ NIED claim because any alleged physical impact from the incident was minimal and the asserted emotional distress, unsupported by treatment or objective evidence of lasting harm, was too speculative to support recovery.


Atl. Coast Airlines v. Cook, 857 N.E.2d 989 (Ind. 2006)