## Facts

- Dixie B. Robb drove on a private lane to her home that crossed a railroad right-of-way operated by the Pennsylvania Railroad Company.
- At the grade crossing, her vehicle stalled when its rear wheels lodged in a rut about a foot deep that was allegedly negligently allowed to form at the crossing.
- After several minutes of trying to move the vehicle, Robb saw a train approaching and, with only seconds remaining, jumped from the vehicle and ran to avoid being struck.
- The locomotive hit and demolished the vehicle; Robb was within a few feet of the track at the moment of impact and was covered with soot and dirt.
- Robb was not physically touched by the train and suffered no contemporaneous bodily impact or immediate physical injury.
- Robb alleged she suffered severe fright and nervous shock that caused physical consequences, including cessation of lactation, and related interference with work and business activities.

## Issues

1. Whether a plaintiff within the immediate zone of physical danger created by a defendant’s negligence may recover for physical consequences of fright and nervous shock without bodily impact or contemporaneous physical injury.

## Decision

- The Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court’s summary judgment for the railroad.
- The court held that a plaintiff may recover for physical injuries proximately caused by fright resulting from the defendant’s negligence when the plaintiff was within the immediate zone of physical danger, even without bodily impact.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- The absence of bodily impact does not bar recovery for physical injuries proximately caused by fright where the plaintiff was placed in immediate risk of bodily harm by the defendant’s negligence.
- Liability is limited by a zone-of-danger requirement: recovery is confined to plaintiffs foreseeably subjected to an actual, immediate risk of physical injury.
- Concerns about speculative or fraudulent claims do not justify a categorical impact requirement when the claim alleges demonstrable physical injury and causation can be proven.

## Conclusion

Delaware rejected the strict impact rule for negligence claims alleging physical injury resulting from fright and adopted a zone-of-danger limitation, permitting recovery where the defendant’s negligence exposed the plaintiff to immediate physical peril and the fright proximately caused physical harm.


Robb v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 210 A.2d 709 (Del. 1965)