Legal Opinion

DiVito v. Greenstein

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided April 27, 1972No. Civ. A. No. 71-2498PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOSEPH S. LORD, III, Chief Judge.

Defendant Dillon has moved to dismiss this diversity complaint on the ground, inter alia, that Pennsylvania law does not permit recovery for purely emotional stress unless “the plaintiff was in personal danger of physical impact because of the direction of a negligent force against him and * * * plaintiff actually did fear the physical impact.” Niederman v. Brodsky, 436 Pa. 401, 413, 261 A.2d 84, 90 (1970). Indeed, both parties in their briefs seem to treat the action as one involving mental stress alone, not induced by fear of a physical…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Niederman v. BrodskySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970
  2. Robert D. Putman v. Erie City Manufacturing CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1964
  3. Carney v. BarnettDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1967

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Huber v. McElwee-Courbis Construction Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1974
  2. Burkhardt v. LibertyDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1975
  3. Ash V. G. P. Putnam's Sons & MCA Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1976

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API