## Facts

- Leonard R. Busch allegedly drove his automobile negligently, causing it to veer across a highway.
- Charles Falzone was standing in a field adjacent to the roadway and was struck and injured by Busch’s vehicle.
- Mabel Falzone, Charles’s wife, was seated in a lawfully parked automobile near where her husband was struck.
- Busch’s vehicle came so close to Mabel that she feared for her own safety, though she was not physically impacted.
- Mabel alleged that, as a direct result of this fright, she became ill and required medical attention.
- Charles asserted a derivative per quod claim based on Mabel’s alleged injuries.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Busch on Mabel’s and Charles’s claims under the then-prevailing rule barring recovery for negligently induced fright absent physical impact.

## Issues

1. Whether a plaintiff who is placed in danger by a defendant’s negligence may recover for substantial bodily injury or sickness caused by reasonable fear for her own immediate safety, despite the absence of physical impact.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded.
- The court held that physical impact is not a prerequisite to recovery when the plaintiff was placed in danger by the defendant’s negligence.
- Recovery is permitted if the plaintiff’s fear is reasonable and concerns immediate personal injury, and the fright results in substantial bodily injury or sickness.
- Because Mabel alleged illness requiring medical attention after a near-miss that allegedly placed her in immediate danger, her claim could proceed; Charles’s derivative claim was reinstated as well.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant may be liable in negligence for substantial bodily injury or sickness that is proximately caused by the plaintiff’s reasonable fear of immediate personal injury, even without physical impact.
- The plaintiff must have been within the zone of danger created by the defendant’s negligence, meaning actually exposed to an imminent risk of physical harm.
- Causation between emotional shock and physical injury is a factual matter to be proved with evidence (including medical proof), not barred categorically.
- Concerns about fraudulent or excessive claims are addressed through ordinary proof requirements and fact-finding, not through an absolute no-impact bar.

## Conclusion

The court rejected the no-impact rule and allowed a plaintiff in the zone of danger to pursue damages for substantial physical illness caused by reasonable fear of immediate injury, restoring both the direct claim and the derivative per quod claim for further proceedings.


Falzone v. Busch, 45 N.J. 559, 214 A.2d 12 (N.J. 1965)