## Facts

- Linwood Gammon died at Osteopathic Hospital in Portland, Maine.
- Gerald C. Gammon (the decedent’s son) hired Neal‑York Funeral Home to handle funeral arrangements.
- A funeral home employee retrieved the body from the hospital morgue, where the body was stored in a cooler drawer with plastic bags nearby.
- One bag was tagged as the decedent’s personal effects; another bag in the same drawer was untagged.
- The employee assumed both bags were personal effects and delivered both to Gerald Gammon.
- At home the next morning, Gerald opened the untagged bag and discovered an inner bag containing a bloodied, severed lower leg.
- A label indicated the leg was a pathology specimen from someone other than the decedent; the bag was returned to the hospital.
- Gerald claimed severe emotional distress, including nightmares, personality changes, and deterioration in family relationships; he did not seek medical treatment.

## Issues

1. Whether Maine permits recovery for negligent infliction of severe emotional distress without accompanying physical injury or objective physical manifestations of distress.
2. Whether the evidence permitted a jury to find that defendants’ negligence proximately caused severe emotional distress that was reasonably foreseeable to a bereaved family member.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine vacated the judgment for defendants on the negligence-based emotional distress claim and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that physical impact, physical injury, or objective symptomatology is not a categorical prerequisite to recover for negligent infliction of severe emotional distress.
- The court concluded the evidence was sufficient for a jury to decide whether the hospital and/or funeral home negligently caused serious emotional distress to the plaintiff.
- The directed verdict for defendants on the negligent infliction claim was error.

## Legal Principles

- Serious emotional distress may be a compensable injury in negligence even without physical impact or objective physical symptoms.
- Limits on liability for emotional harm are governed by ordinary negligence concepts, including duty, breach, causation, and reasonable foreseeability.
- Foreseeability is assessed objectively, including whether a person of ordinary sensibilities in the plaintiff’s position would likely suffer serious emotional distress from the defendant’s conduct.
- Concerns about fabricated or trivial claims are addressed through ordinary litigation tools (pleading, discovery, dispositive motions, and credibility determinations), rather than categorical physical-injury barriers.
- In situations involving handling of human remains and related items, severe emotional distress to close family members is especially foreseeable due to their heightened vulnerability during bereavement.

## Conclusion

The court recognized negligent infliction of severe emotional distress as an independent negligence claim not conditioned on physical injury, and held that a jury could reasonably find defendants liable where their mishandling of items associated with a decedent foreseeably caused serious emotional harm to the decedent’s son.


Gammon v. Osteopathic Hosp. of Me., Inc., 534 A.2d 1282 (Me. 1987)