Facts
- Margaret A. Spade rode as a passenger on the defendant street railway’s crowded late-evening streetcar, standing in the aisle.
- An intoxicated, quarrelsome man caused a disturbance on the car.
- The conductor intervened, and a scuffle occurred involving the intoxicated man and at least one other person.
- During the struggle, the intoxicated man was pushed or thrown against Spade.
- Spade alleged no objective, contemporaneous physical impact injury; instead, she claimed extreme fright and nervous shock that later produced serious bodily illness.
- Spade sued, alleging the defendant’s negligent management of the car and disturbance caused fright and resulting physical harm.
Issues
- Whether a plaintiff may recover in negligence for bodily injury allegedly caused by fright or nervous shock where there is no contemporaneous physical impact or direct physical injury.
Decision
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts sustained the defendant’s exceptions and set aside the plaintiff’s verdict.
- The court held that no recovery lies for physical injuries resulting solely from fright or nervous shock unaccompanied by physical impact, even if the fright was negligently caused and later produced bodily illness.
Legal Principles
- Negligence liability does not extend to bodily illness attributed solely to fright or nervous shock when there is no contemporaneous physical impact or direct physical injury.
- The scope of a defendant’s duty to act carefully may be broader than the scope of legally compensable consequences once a wrong is shown; limits on liability may be imposed as a matter of law.
- Courts may adopt a categorical limit to avoid speculative claims and proof problems where causation between emotional disturbance and later physical illness is difficult to test.
Conclusion
The court rejected recovery for fright-based injuries without impact, adopting an impact requirement as a limiting rule for negligence claims alleging physical illness caused by emotional shock.