King v. Higgins
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
PER Cueiam.
“It is almost the universal opinion that recovery may be had for mental or emotional disturbance in ordinary negligence cases where, coincident in time and place with the occurrence producing the mental stress, some actual physical impact or genuine physical injury also resulted directly from defendant’s negligence.” Williamson v. Bennett, 251 N.C. 498, 132 S.E. 2d 48. See also King v. Britt, 267 N.C. 594, 148 S.E. 2d 594. In the present case the jury was instructed that the plaintiff, if entitled to recover at all, was to be awarded in a lump sum a fair and reasonable compensation…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Williamson v. BennettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
- King v. BrittSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
- Overton v. OvertonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
- Lloyd v. . BowenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
- Mintz v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- DiDonato v. WortmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1987
- State v. BooneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
- Blow v. ShaughnessyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1988
- McLain v. Taco Bell Corp.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
- Champs Convenience Stores, Inc. v. United Chemical Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1991
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.