The Influence of Reasonableness in Determining Delictual or Tort Liability for Emotional Distress or Mental Harm in American and French Law
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2023/v26i0a15700Keywords:
American law, delict, emotional distress or harm, French law, intentionally inflicted emotional distress, mental harm, reasonableness, tortAbstract
American and French law, like South African law recognises claims for emotional or mental harm. Emotional, mental, or psychological harm was only recognised by the courts in the 1800's and even though the mind and body in a sense is considered as a unit, these types of claims are not on par with claims for physical bodily injury. In fact, these types of claims can be regarded as sui generis but within the broader ambit of delictual or tort liability. Finding delictual or tort liability for emotional, mental or psychological harm has been problematic not only in South Africa but also in the United States of America and France. Even though there are fundamental differences in the law between these jurisdictions, the broader questions the courts face is whether a claimant is entitled to claim, the amount of damages that should be awarded and how to limit liability with these types of claims. Limiting liability for emotional or mental harm is generally the main policy concern but the courts have found ways of using the elements or concepts such as reasonable foreseeability of harm to limit the claims. American, French, and South African law recognise claims for emotional, mental or psychological harm by primary and secondary victims. Thus emotional, mental, or psychological harm caused directly or indirectly is compensable. In American and French law, the concept of reasonableness plays an important role, whether it be implicit or explicit, in determining delictual or tort liability for emotional or mental harm. In a sense also, reasonableness plays an overarching role in determing the liability. In a previous contribution, the influence of reasonableness in determining delictual or tort liability for psychiatric or psychological harm in English and South African law was discussed. In this contribution, the focus is on the influence of reasonableness in determining delictual or tort liability for emotional or mental harm in American and French law.
Downloads
References
Bibliography
Literature
Ahmed R "The Influence of Reasonableness on the Element of Conduct in Delictual or Tort Liability: Comparative Conclusions" 2019 PELJ 1-34 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2019/v22i0a6122
Ahmed R "The Influence of Reasonableness in Determining Delictual or Tort Liability for Psychological or Psychiatric Harm in South African and English Law" 2023 PELJ (under review)
Ahmed R and Steynberg L "Claims for Emotional Shock Suffered by Primary and Secondary Victims" 2015 THRHR 181-199
American Law Institute Restatement (Third) of Torts (Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm) (American Law Institute St Paul 2010)
Borda JL "One's Right to Enjoy Mental Peace and Tranquility" 1939 Geo LJ 55-67
Borghetti J-S "The Culture of Tort Law in France" 2012 JETL 158-182 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jetl-2012-0158
Deakin S and Adams Z Markesinis and Deakin's Tort Law 8th ed (Clarendon Press Oxford 2019) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198747963.001.0001
Dobbs DB, Hayden PT and Bublick EM Hornbook on Torts 2nd ed (West St Paul MN 2016)
Galand-Carval S "Fault Under French Law" in Widmer P (ed) Unification of Tort Law: Fault (Kluwer Law The Hague 2005) 89-100
Geistfeld MA "The Principle of Misalignment" 2011 Yale LJ 142-193
Givelber D "The Right to Minimum Social Decency and the Limits of Evenhandedness" 1982 Colum L Rev 42-75 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1122238
Goodrich H "Emotional Disturbance as Legal Damage" 1922 Mich L Rev 497-513 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1277637
Knetsch J Tort Law in France (Kluwer Law International Alphen aan den Rijn 2021)
Magruder C "Mental and Emotional Disturbance in the Law of Torts" 1936 Harv L Rev 1033-1067 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1333061
Moréteau O "Country Reports: France" 2010 European Tort Law Yearbook 175-199 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110239423.175
Moréteau O "Basic Questions of Tort Law from a French Perspective" in Koziol H (ed) Basic Questions of Tort Law from a Comparative Perspective (Jan Sramek Verlag Wien 2015) 3-98
Prosser WL "Intentional Infliction of Mental Suffering: A New Tort" 1939 Mich L Rev 874-892 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1282744
Rabin RL "Emotional Distress in Tort Law" 2009 Wake Forest L Rev 1197-1210
Sage Y "French Law of Delict: The Role of Fault and the Principles Governing Losses and Remedies" 1996 VUWLR 1-19 DOI: https://doi.org/10.26686/vuwlr.v26i2.6166
Seitz RC "Insults – Practical Jokes – Threats of Future Harm – How New as Torts?" 1940 Ky LJ 411-423
Séjean M and Knetsch J "Country Reports: France" 2015 European Tort Law Yearbook 205-225 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tortlaw-2016-0112
Smith HR "An Independent Tort Action for Mental Suffering and Emotional Distress" 1957 Drake L Rev 53-64
Steiner E French Law 2nd ed (Oxford University Press Oxford 2018) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198790884.001.0001
Van Dam C European Tort Law 2nd ed (Oxford University Press Oxford 2013) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199672264.001.0001
Van Gerven W, Lever JF and Larouche P Tort Law (Hart Oxford 2000)
Vold L "Tort Recovery for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress" 1939 Neb LB 222-245
Case law
France
Cass ch mixte 27 February 1970, D 1970 Jur 201 note Combaldieu, JCP 1970 II 16305
Cass civ 1 16 January 1962 D, 1962 199 note Rodière, JCP 1962 12577 note Esmein
Cass civ 1 19 December 2006, JCP 2007 II 10052, note Hocquet-Berg, RTDCiv 2007 352 observations Jourdain
Cass civ 2 22 February 1995 92-18731 93-12644 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0026-0576(95)96121-6
Cass civ 2 19 May 2016 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/MSPEC.2016.7419790
Cass crim 22 March 1877, Bull crim 1877 86
Cass soc 3 March 2015 13-21832, 13-20474, 13-20486, 13-26175
Cass soc 11 May 2010 09-42241 to 09-42257, Bull soc 2010 V 206
Cass soc 28 February 2002 00-10051, 99-18389, 00-11793, 99-21255, 99-17201 and 00-13172
CÉ 27 May 2015 371697
Chartier and CA Paris 10 November 1983, D 1984 214
Crim 17 October 2000 99-86157, Bull crim 2000 297 874
Paris Labour Tribunal (Conseil des prud'hommes Paris), 16 January 2015 F 12/10198
South Africa
Bester v Commercial Union Versekeringsmaatskappy van SA Bpk 1973 1 SA 769 (A)
S v Mokgethi 1990 1 SA 32 (A)
United Kingdom
Victorian Railway Commissioners v Coultas 1888 13 App Cas 222
White v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police 1999 2 AC 455
United States of America
Armstrong v Paoli Mem'l Hosp 430 Pa Super 36, 633 A 2d 605 (1993)
Battalla v State 176 NE 2d 729 (NY 1961) DOI: https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.1961.tb69965.x
Bevan v Fix 42 P 3d 1013 (Wyo 2002) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-002-0838-7
Blakely v Shortfal's Estate 1945 236 Iowa 787, 20 NW 2d 28
Boswell v Barnum & Bailey 1916 135 Tenn 35, 185 SW 692
Bovsun v Sanperi 61 NY 2d 219, 461 NE 2d 843, 473 NYS 2d 357 (1984)
Brackett v Peters 11 F 3d 78 (7th Cir 1993)
Brandon v Cnty of Richardson 261 Neb 636, 624 NW 2d 604 (2001)
Braski v Ah-Ne-Pee Dimensional Hardwood Inc 630 F Supp 862 (WD Wis 1986)
Broadnax v Gonzalez 2 NY 3d 148, 809 NE 2d 645, 777 NYS 2d 416 (2004)
Camper v Minor 915 SW 2d 437 (Tenn 1996) DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3042569
Carter v Williams 792 A2d 1093 (Me 2002)
Catron v Lewis 271 Neb 416, 712 NW 2d 245 (2006)
Chamberlain v Chandler CC Mass 1823 3 Mason 242, 5 Fed Cas No 2, 575
Chelini v Nieri 1948 32 Cal 2d 480, 196 P 2d 915 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.32.12.915
Chisum v Behrens SD 1979 283 NW 2d 235
Cohen v McDonnell Douglas Corp 450 NE 2D 581 (Mass 1983)
Consolidated Rail Corp v Gottshall 512 US 532, 546-47, 114 S Ct 2396, 129 L Ed 2d 427 (1994)
Contreras v Crown Zellerbach Corp 88 Was 2d 735, 565 P 2d 1173 (1977)
Corso v Merrill 119 NH 647, 650, 406 A 2d 300 (1979) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-5963(79)90054-0
Cote v Litawa 96 NH 174, 71 A 2d 792 (1950) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1246/nikkashi1948.71.96
Courtney v Courtney 413 SE 2d 418 (W Va 1991)
CSX Transp Inc v Hensley 556 US 838, 129 S Ct 2139, 173 L Ed 2d 1184 (2009)
Dillon v Legg 68 Cal 2d 728, 69 Cal Rptr 72, 441 P2d 912 (1968)
District of Columbia v Tulin 994 A 2d 788 (DC 2010)
Doe v Corporation of President of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints 141 Wash App 407, 167 P 3d 1193 (2007)
Dowty v Riggs 385 SW 3d 117 (Ark 2010)
Eckenrode v Life of America Insurance Co (7th Cir 1972) 470 F 2d 1
Eskin v Bartee 262 SW 3d 727 (Tenn 2008)
Faya v Almaraz 329 Md 435, 620 A 2d 327 (1993) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199308263290906
Feller v First Interstate Bancsystem Inc 299 P 3d 338 (Mont 2013)
Ferrara v Galluchio 5 NY 2d 16, 152 NE 2d 249, 176 NYS 2d 996 (1958)
Fletcher v Western National Insurance Co 1970 10 Cal App 3d 376, 89 Cal Rptr 78
Gabaldon v Jay-Bi Property Mgmt Inc 925 P 2d 510 (NM 1996)
Gilliam v Roche Biomedical Labs Inc 989 F 2d 278 (8th Cir 1993)
Gleason v Smolinski 88 A 3d 589 (Conn 2014) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/gequ.10250
Goddard v Watters 1914 14 Ga App 722, 82 SE 304 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1914.tb15994.x
Grager v Schudar 770 NW 2d 692 (ND 2009)
Graves v Estabrook 818 A 2d 1255 (NH 2003)
Hedgepeth v Whitman Walker Clinic 22 A 3d 789 (DC 2011)
Hill v Kimball 1890 76 Tex 210, 13 SW 59 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/13.4.550
Interstate Amusement Co v Martin 1913 8 Ala App 481, 62 So 404
Jelley v Laflame 108 NH 471, 238 A 2d 728 (1968) DOI: https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.1968.tb83139.x
Johnson v General Motors Acceptance Corp 5th Cir 1955, 228 F 2d 104
Johnston v State of New York 1975 37 NY 2d 378, 372 NYS 2d 638, 334 NE 2d 590
Keck v Jackson 122 Ariz 114, 593 P 2d 668 (1979) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)56551-9
KM v Ala Dep't of Youth Servs 360 F Supp 2d 1253 (MD Ala 2005)
Leong v Takasaki 520 P 2d 758 (Haw 1974) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.2.5918.520
Madrid v Lincoln Cnty Med Ctr 923 P 2d 1134 (NM 1996)
Mahnke v Moore 1951, 197 Md 61, 77 A 2d 923 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0368-1742(51)80019-5
McCulloh v Drake 24 P 3d 1162 (Wyo 2001) DOI: https://doi.org/10.31399/asm.edfa.2001-1.p024
McDougall v Lamm 211 NJ 203, 48 A 3d 312 (2012) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.02.008
McQuay v Guntharp 331 Ark 466, 963 SW 2d 583 (1998)
Mitchell v Rochester Railway Co 45 NE 354 (NY 1896)
Moolien v Kaiser Foundation Hospitals 616 P 3d 813 (Cal 1980)
Moon v Guardian Postacute Servs Inc 95 Cal App 4th 1005, 116 Cal Rptr 2d 218, 98 ALR 5th 767 (2002)
Nims v Harrison 768 So 2d 1198 (Fla Dist Ct App 2000)
Norfolk & Western Railway Co v Ayers 538 US 135, 123 S Ct 1210, 155 L Ed 2d 261 (2003)
Orlo v Connecticut Co 21 A 2d 402 (Conn 1941)
Paz v Brush Engineered Materials Inc 949 So 2d 1 (Miss 2007)
Perodeau v City of Hartford 259 Conn 729, 754, 792 A 2d 752, 767 (2002)
Plotnik v Meihaus 208 Cal App 4th 1590, 146 Cal Rptr 3d 585 (2012)
Rogers v Williard 1920 144 Ark 587, 223 SW 15 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3714805
Russ v W Union Tel Co 222 NC 504, 23 SE 2d 681 (1943)
Russell v Salve Regina College 649 F Supp 391, 401 (DR 1 1986)
Shaffer v National Can Corp 565 F Supp 909 (ED Pa 1983)
Slocum v Food Fair Stores of Florida Inc Fla 1958 100 So 2d 396
Smith v Toney 862 NE 2d 656 (Ind 2007)
St Onge v MacDonald 154 NH 768, 917 A 2d 233 (2007) DOI: https://doi.org/10.7202/032479ar
Stadler v Cross Minn 1980 295 NW 2d 552
State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co v Campbell 538 US 408, 123 S Ct 1513, 155 L Ed 2d 585 (2003)
Steinhauser v Hertz Corp 421 F 2d 1169 (2nd Cir 1970)
Sundquist v Madison Ry 221 NW 2d 63 (Wisc 1960) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0040571X6006348001
Taft v Taft 1867 40 Vt 229
Thing v La Chusa 771 P 2d 814 (Cal 1989)
Toney v Chester Cnty Hosp 36 A 3d 83 (Pa 2011)
Torres v State 1962 34 Misc 2d 488, 288 NYS 2d 1005
Trombetta v Conkling 82 NY 2d 549, 626 NE 2d 653, 605 NE 2d 653, 605 NYS 2d 678 (1993)
Valadez v Emmis Commc'ns 229 P 3d 389 (Kan 2010)
Wallace v Shoreham Hotel Corp App DC 1946 49 A 2d 81
White v Brommer 747 F Supp 2d 447 (ED Pa 2010)
Williamson v Bennett 251 NC 498, 112 SE 2d 48 (1960) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01104566
Zimmerman v Dane Cnty 329 Wis 2d 270, 789 NW 2d 754 (Ct App 2010)
Legislation
France
French Civil Code
United States of America
California Civil Code
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Raheel Ahmed
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
.png){kind=spacer}