In aVermont personal injury lawsuit, the plaintiff can seek compensation for any damages they sustained as a result of the defendant’s negligent acts. For example, if a reckless driver hits you and you suffer a broken arm, you can sue to recover the costs of your medical treatment and subsequent rehabilitation. It is also possible to seek compensation for the emotional trauma of that event. Vermont law refers to this as “negligent infliction of emotional distress” (NIED).
According to the Vermont Supreme Court, NIED is generally limited to cases where the plaintiff suffers an emotional harm “with concurrent physical harms.” In other words, you can only seek compensation for NIED if you also suffered some physical injury, such as with the hypothetical broken arm example. There is no standalone claim under Vermont law for emotional distress or “mental suffering” without some accompanying physical injury.
Vermont Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to “Physical Impact” Rule
The Vermont Supreme Court recently elaborated further on this subject in a case, Zeno-Ethridge v. Comcast Corporation, where the plaintiff suffered emotional trauma and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as the result of witnessing a deadly accident. This case began in March 2016. The plaintiff was driving her vehicle southbound on Route 7 in Middlebury, Vermont. At the time, a subcontractor crew working for Comcast was in the process of installing utility cables on the road.
When the plaintiff drove past the work site, she saw one of the utility trucks moving in reverse towards one of the workers. She then saw this worker “get pulled down and sucked under the truck,” according to court records. The plaintiff then attempted to alert the utility truck driver by pulling her own vehicle up behind. After the utility truck came to a stop, the plaintiff exited her vehicle and ran towards the injured worker to try and render aid. But it was too late. The worker’s skull was crushed by the truck, killing him. As the plaintiff approached the scene, some of the blood and brain matter from the deceased worker got onto the plaintiff’s clothes.
Several months later, the plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against Comcast, alleging she had been diagnosed with PTSD and depression as a result of witnessing the accident and attempting to help the victim. The plaintiff’s complaint primarily advanced a claim for damages based on negligent infliction of emotional distress. The trial court dismissed the case, however, holding that the plaintiff failed to allege an “actual injury,” i.e., a concurrent physical injury that could support an award for NIED.
On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court agreed with the trial judge’s ruling. Before the Supreme Court, the plaintiff argued the justices should eliminate the requirement for a “physical impact” to sustain an NIED complaint. The Court declined to do so for three reasons:
- Foreseeability: The Court explained that in personal injury law, the risk of harm to the plaintiff had to be “foreseeable” by the defendant. When it comes to purely emotional injuries, the Court said it was impossible to establish such foreseeability, as “some plaintiffs are more susceptible to emotional harms” than others. In contrast, when there is a physical injury, it is foreseeable that it would also produce emotional distress.
- Unlimited Liability: The Court said that eliminating the connection between physical injury and emotional trauma in personal injury cases would risk subjecting defendants to liability for “every bystander shocked at an accident, and every distant relative of the person injured, as well as all his friends.”
- Potential for Fraud: The Court said that mental injuries were more “uncertain” and “difficult to disprove” than physical injuries. Consequently, the justices did not want to open the door to claimants who were faking a mental injury just to obtain compensation. At the same time, the justices said they were not trying to downplay or dismiss the seriousness of mental illness.
In addition to affirming Vermont’s physical-impact requirement for NIED claims, the Supreme Court further declined to grant the plaintiff’s request for an exception permitting such claims when, as here, the plaintiff has been diagnosed with PTSD. Specifically, the plaintiff said she was entitled to such an exception because she was acting as a “rescuer” when she tried to assist the fatally injured worker. The Court said no such exception was warranted under Vermont law, as a “rescuer lacks any sense of control or professional care over the person being rescued.” Undertaking a rescue was not, in the Court’s view, an activity that was so risky as to merit a “new NIED exception applicable to such cases.”
The Supreme Court also clarified that a plaintiff alleging NIED must show they suffered a physical injury as the result of an “external force.” In this case, the plaintiff argued that even under the physical-impact rule, she could show a physical injury as the result of making contact with the victim’s blood and brain matter. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, because it was the plaintiff herself who caused this contact by voluntarily walking through the accident scene. No “external force” caused the physical contact with her clothing.
Finally, the Court held that a PTSD diagnosis, standing by itself, did not constitute an “actual injury” for purposes of a negligence claim against Comcast. Put another way, the Court found that as a matter of law, PTSD was not a “physical injury.” Rather, it was a “mental or emotional harm.”
Contact a Vermont Personal Injury Lawyer Today
To be clear, nothing in the case above eliminates or restricts the ability of an accident victim to seek compensation for emotional distress or trauma. So long as there is an accompanying physical injury, a Vermont court is still free to award damages for such emotional harm. But it is crucial for victims to clearly establish their physical injury and not rely solely on mental health diagnoses when seeking compensation from a defendant.
If you need to speak with a qualified Vermont personal injury lawyer about your case,contact Larson & Gallivan Law today to schedule a free consultation.
