 the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress (nied) is a controversial cause of action, which is available in nearly all u.s. states but is severely constrained and limited in the majority of them. the underlying concept is that one has a legal duty to use reasonable care to avoid causing emotional distress to another individual. if one fails in this duty and unreasonably causes emotional distress to another person, that actor will be liable for monetary damages to the injured individual. the tort is to be contrasted with intentional infliction of emotional distress in that there is no need to prove intent to inflict distress. that is, an accidental infliction, if negligent, is sufficient to support a cause of action. ==history== nied began to develop in the late nineteenth century, but only in a very limited form, in the sense that plaintiffs could recover for consequential emotional distress as a component of damages when a defendant negligently inflicted physical harm upon them. by 1908, most industrial u.s. states had adopted the "physical impact" form of nied. however, nied started developing into its more mature and more controversial form in the mid-20th century, as the new machines of the second industrial revolution flooded the legal system with all kinds of previously unimaginable complex factual scenarios. courts began to allow plaintiffs to recover for emotional distress resulting from negligent physical injuries to not only themselves, but other persons with whom they had a special relationship, like a relative. the first step, then, was to remove the requirement of physical injury to the actual plaintiff while keeping the requirement of physical injury to someone. in the 1968 landmark decision of dillon v. legg, the supreme court of california was the first court to allow recovery for emotional distress aloneeven in the absence of any physical injury to the plaintiffin the particular situation where the plaintiff simply witnessed the death of a close relative at a distance, and was not within the "zone of danger" where the relative was killed.see dillon v. legg, 68 cal. 2d 728 (1968). a 2007 statistical study commissioned by the court found that dillon was the most persuasive decision published by the court between 1940 and 2005; dillon has been favorably cited and followed by at least twenty reported out-of-state appellate decisions, more than any other california appellate decision.jake dear and edward w. jessen, " followed rates" and leading state cases, 1940-2005, 41 u.c. davis l. rev. 683, 694(2007). the next step after dillon was to make optional the element of another person (so 
Emotional_issues Law_of_negligence