Binns v. Fredendall
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtMoyer, C.J.
The issue presented by this appeal is whether the test we announced in Paugh v. Hanks (1983), 6 Ohio St. 3d 72, 6 OBR 114, 451 N.E. 2d 759, for the recovery of damages for emotional and psychiatric injuries applies where the person seeking the damages has also suffered contemporaneous physical injury. Because Paugh, supra, is not intended to limit recovery by such plaintiffs, but was so applied by the trial court, we affirm the finding of prejudicial error and remand the cause for retrial.
I
Ohio law has traditionally permitted recovery for negligently inflicted emotional and psychiatric…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Paugh v. HanksOhio Supreme Court · 1983
- Schultz v. Barberton Glass Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1983
3Cited by44 opinions
- Burris v. Grange Mutual CompaniesOhio Supreme Court · 1989
- Folz v. StateNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1990
- Heiner v. MoretuzzoOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- Fantozzi v. Sandusky Cement Products Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1992
- Kraszewski v. Baptist Medical Center of Oklahoma, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1996
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.