About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

34 Ariz. L. Rev. 439 (1992)
Evaluating Independent Torts Based upon Intentional or Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress: How Can We Keep the Baby from Dissolving in the Bath Water

handle is hein.journals/arz34 and id is 451 raw text is: EVALUATING INDEPENDENT TORTS BASED UPON INTENTIONAL OR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: How CAN WE KEEP THE BABY FROM DISSOLVING IN THE BATH WATER? David Crump* TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................ 441 A. The Uses of the Negligent-Infliction Claim ........................................ 443 B. Analyzing the Intentional- and Negligent-Infliction Theories: The Scope of This Article .................................................................... 444 I. COMPARING THE NEGLIGENT-INFLICTION THEORY TO THE INTENTIONAL TORTS: EFFECTS UPON LIMITS THAT REFLECT PUBLIC POLICY ............................................................................................. 446 A. The Intentional-Infliction Tort: Rationale, Evolution, and Lim its ............................................................................................ 446 1. The Benefits of the Intentional-Infliction Tort ..................... 446. 2. The Costs of the Intentional-Infliction Tort ............48...... A 3. Deterrence of Useful Activities because of Deficiencies in the Outrageousness Limit ......................................................... 451 B. Superseding the Intentional Torts and Their Limits: Would Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Become an All- Purpose Tort? ................................................................................... 453 C. The Established Uses of the Negligent-Infliction Theory: Duties Based Upon Contract, Independent Tort, or Bystander Claims ......... 457 D. The General Requirement of a Physical Element in Negligence Claims for Personal Injury ................................................................. 460 II. COMPARING THE NEGLIGENT-INFLICTION THEORY TO THE ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE CLAIM: THE QUESTFORLIMITs ....................... 461 A. The Duty Limit-and the Indefinite Reach of Foreseeability ............. 461 * A.B. Harvard 1966; J.D., University of Texas 1969; Professor of Law, University of Houston. The author has represented both the plaintiffs side and the defendant's side in appellate litigation that has developed the law governing emotional distress claims. Specifically, among other cases, the author was counsel to defendant (on appeal and discretionary review only) in Boyles v. Kerr, No. D-0963 (Tex. appeal docketed June 19, 1991), see infra note 10, and also was counsel to plaintiffs (both at trial before a jury and on appeal) in Clark v. Smith, 494 S.W.2d 192 (Tex. Civ. App.-Dallas 1973), writ refd n.r.e., see infra note 107.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most