|
The Tennessee Court of
Appeals in Richard Lane, et al v. Estate of Gary K. Leggett, No.
M2016-00448-COA-R3-CV, 2017 WL 1176982 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017) discussed whether a Plaintiff can recover for Negligent Infliction of
Emotional Distress for a claim that involves only property damage. In this
case, the Plaintiff owned a business in White House, Tennessee. The Defendant
rear-ended a vehicle and left the roadway at a high rate of speed, causing his
car to run into the building that contained the Plaintiff’s business. The
vehicle struck a gas meter which resulted in a significant fire and caused a
complete loss of the Plaintiff’s business. The Plaintiff was not actually at
the property at the time of the loss, but he returned shortly thereafter and
witnessed the fire at his business.
As a result of this
accident, the Plaintiff filed suit asserting that the loss of Plaintiff’s
business and the great fire that was caused by the accident, as well as
Plaintiff’s observations, caused him to have severe mental and emotional
injuries. He was even diagnosed with
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Anxiety from the incident. Plaintiff
therefore claimed he was entitled to recover against the Defendant under the
theory of negligent infliction of emotional distress for these personal
injuries.
The Tennessee Court of
Appeals noted that to recover damages under the theory of negligent infliction
of emotional distress, a plaintiff must “prove each of the elements of general
negligence; duty, breach of duty, injury or loss, causation and fact, and
proximate, or legal, cause. A plaintiff must also prove that he or she has
suffered a serious or severe emotional injury” (Lane at p. 3) (citing Camper v. Minor, 915 S.W.2d
437 (Tenn. 1996). Interestingly, however, no case in Tennessee has
explicitly held that negligent infliction of emotional distress is an
appropriate claim for a plaintiff resulting from emotional injuries that solely
arise out of property damage.
The Court reviewed
Tennessee Supreme Court cases and found one case that commented on this issue,
but did not have a holding on this issue directly. In that case, Whaley v. Perkins, 197 S.W.3d 665, 670 (Tenn. 2006), the Tennessee Supreme Court stated the following:
Subject to some exceptions, generally, under ordinary circumstances,
there can be no recovery for mental anguish suffered by plaintiff in connection
with an injury to his or her property. Where, however, the act occasioning the
injury to the property is inspired by fraud, malice, or like motives, mental
suffering is a proper element of damage.
(Lane at p. 3). Based on this statement by the Tennessee Supreme
Court and a review of other decision, the Tennessee Court of Appeals found that
absent evidence that the injury to the property is inspired by fraud, malice,
or other similar motives, there is simply no claim for negligent infliction of
emotional distress for a loss that involves property damage only. (Lane at p. 4) As a result, the Tennessee Court of Appeals ruled that
the Plaintiff was not entitled to recovery under this legal theory in this case.
This case appears to be consistent with Tennessee case law on this issue. To have
a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, there must be more than
property damage or there must be one of the enhancing factors discussed in the Whaley case.
Follow me on Twitter at @jasonalee for updates from the Tennessee Defense Litigation
blog.
|