Bosley v. Andrews

THE DUTY ISSUE – MENTAL & EMOTIONAL HARM (Pg. 235)

Bosley v. Andrews
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1958
393 Pa. 161

JUDICIAL HISTORY: Π (wife) sought to recover damages for a heart disability which resulted from her fright and shock upon being chased by a Hereford bull owned by the ∆. ∆’s cattle strayed onto the Π’s farm and injured crops, for which the jury gave the Πs a verdict of $179.99. The bull did not strike or touch the Π, and the Π did not suffer any physical injuries. The Superior Court sustained the entry of a nonsuit.

FACTS: The evidence does not show that the bull got any nearer to the Π than approx. 25 feet. Π collapsed on the ground and had an attack of coronary insufficiency – shortness or breath, pain in her chest and an insufficiency of blood flowing into the artery of her heart.

ISSUE: Is the ∆ liable for the Π’s injuries that resulted from her fright and shock?

HOLDING: No, judgment affirmed.

REASONING: The rule is long and well established in Pennsylvania that there can be no recovery of damages for injuries resulting from fright or nervous shock or mental or emotional disturbances or distress, unless they are accompanied by physical injury or physical impact. In this case, the Π cites a number of decisions of this Court, but they all contain nervous shock accompanied by physical injury. The Π has sustained injuries, but they were not caused by physical injury. The Π was no physically touched and therefore, she cannot recover for her injuries.

RULE: The rule is long and well established in Pennsylvania that there can be no recovery of damages for injuries resulting from fright or nervous shock or mental or emotional disturbances or distress, unless they are accompanied by physical injury or physical impact.

NOTES: