Reference no: EM133539611
Question
Steve was crossing a street in a crosswalk when Barbara walking just ahead of him was hit by a truck. Steve, who had jumped out of the way of the truck, administered CPR to Barbara, who was a stranger.
Barbara bled profusely, and Steve was covered in blood. Barbara died in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. Steve became very depressed immediately after the incident and developed physical symptoms as a result of his emotional distress. Steve has brought an action against the driver of the truck for negligent infliction of emotional distress.
1. What is the strongest argument for the defense?
Steve was not a family member.
Steve was covered in Barbara's blood and developed emotional distress as a result of this, not witnessing the accident.
Steve was acting as a Good Samaritan so NIED does not apply.
Steve did not see the truck hit Barbara.
2. For negligent infliction of emotional distress bystander recovery theory, which of the following is not an essential element of the plaintiff's burden of proof?
The plaintiff suffered demonstrable physical injury from the accident.
A close relative is killed or injured by the defendant.
The plaintiff's mental distress resulted from a sensory and contemporaneous observance of the accident.
The plaintiff suffered severe emotional distressed
3. The following is NOT an element to a NIED action:
The plaintiff must be married to the victim.
Emotional distress suffered by Plaintiff.
Contemporaneous observance of the accident.
A close relative is killed or injured by the defendant.
4. After her husband died in a hospital, a widow directed the hospital to send her husband's body to a funeral home for burial. The hospital negligently misidentified the husband's body and sent it to be cremated. When she was informed of the hospital's mistake, the widow suffered serious emotional distress. She has sued the hospital for NIED.
Is the hospital likely to be held liable to the widow for NIED?
No, because the widow did not witness the cremation.
No, because the widow was never in any danger of bodily harm.
No, because the widow is no longer a close family member.
No, because the negligent handling of the husband's body is not likely to cause serious emotional distress.
5. Mark got a shiny new bicycle and when he was riding the bicycle for the first time the frame of the bicycle broke and Mark leg was severed off. Mark's sister Marcia, saw the accident take place and is distraught to such an extent that she seeks medical care, for nightmares, and a nerves tick.
Will Marcia prevail in a claim of NIED.
All of the Above
Yes, because Marcia was so distraught that he sought medical care.
Yes, because Marcia was a witness to the accident.
Yes, because Marcia is Mark's sister.