Amader v. Johns-Manville Corp.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
TROUTMAN, District Judge.
An individual who claims damages for infliction of emotional distress arising from observation of injuries to another person need not be physically present within the “zone of danger” to prevail. Sinn v. Burd, 486 Pa. 146, 404 A.2d 672 (1979). Instead, recovery depends upon the foreseeability of the harm, which must be analyzed in terms of the physical proximity of the “distressed” person to the event, the manner of communication thereof to him and the consanguinity between him and the victim. Id. at 170-71, 404 A.2d 672. In the case at bar, plaintiffs,…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Sinn v. BurdSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
- Niederman v. BrodskySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970
- Carey v. BeansDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1980
- Edelson v. SoricelliCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1979
- Holman v. Carpenter Technology Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1980
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Wisniewski v. Johns-Manville Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1987
- Cathcart v. Keene Industrial InsulationSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
- Berardi v. Johns-Manville Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
- Mergenthaler v. Asbestos Corp. of AmericaSupreme Court of Delaware · 1984
- Klein v. Council of Chemical AssociationsDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1984
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.