Opinion ID: 2329554
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: ..... Id. (citations omitted).

Text: The plaintiff in Wallace suffered emotional trauma as a result of coming into contact with a foreign object contained in a Coca-Cola bottle while drinking from the bottle. Although the plaintiff could have recovered under the physical impact rule, since his lips came into contact with the foreign object, we did not apply the impact rule, but instead proposed a foreseeability test. The proposed test provided that in those cases where it is established by a fair preponderance of the evidence there is a proximate causal relationship between an act of negligence and reasonably foreseeable mental and emotional suffering by a reasonably foreseeable plaintiff, such proven damages are compensable even though there is no discernable [sic] trauma from external causes. 269 A.2d at 121. We proposed the new rule because of the incongruity of allowing damages for pain and suffering when accompanied by physical harm, however, [sic] slight, and denying it in those many cases in which the proof is clear there was mental suffering induced by a negligent act, but there was no physical impact. Id. However, we limited recovery for mental distress to those cases where the distress was substantial and manifested by objective symptomatology. Twelve years later, in Culbert v. Sampson's Supermarkets Inc., 444 A.2d 433 (Me.1982), we addressed the novel issue whether a bystander could recover for the negligent infliction of mental distress. The plaintiff in Culbert, a mother, witnessed her baby choke and gag on a foreign substance that was present in a jar of baby food. We recognized that since the court in Wallace could have permitted the plaintiff to recover under the then current impact rule, the foreseeability test proposed by the Wallace court constituted obiter dictum. Id. at 436. Nevertheless, we refused to apply the physical impact rule because it had been thoroughly repudiated. Id. at 434. Instead, we declared that a bystander could maintain an action for mental distress if that distress was a reasonably foreseeable result of the tortfeasor's conduct that physically injured someone else. Id. at 438. The psychic injury may be deemed foreseeable when the plaintiff bystander was present at the scene of the accident, suffered mental distress as a result of observing the accident and ensuing danger to the victim, and was closely related to the victim. Id. Implicit in our holding was the requirement that the wrongdoer's liability on the underlying tort first had to be established before recovery could be allowed for the negligent infliction of mental distress. We also overruled the requirement that in order to recover, the distress had to be manifested by objective symptomatology. In its place, we adopted the rule limiting recovery to serious mental distress. Serious mental distress exists where a reasonable person normally constituted, would be unable to adequately cope with the mental stress engendered by the circumstances of the event. Id. at 437 (quotations and citations omitted). We did so because medical science had become sophisticated enough to provide reliable and accurate evidence regarding the causes of mental trauma. See Id. In Packard v. Central Maine Power Co., 477 A.2d 264, 266-68 (Me.1984), we applied the foreseeability test as enunciated in Culbert and held that the plaintiff could not recover for the negligent infliction of mental distress because of the lack of an underlying tort. The plaintiff had filed a complaint containing several counts, one of which alleged defamation and another that set forth a separate independent claim for the negligent infliction of mental distress resulting from the conduct that also constituted the alleged defamation. The plaintiff averred that he suffered extreme mental distress and anxiety in defending the criminal charges made against him that resulted from the defendant's representations to law enforcement officials that the plaintiff had committed a theft of services. The plaintiff did not prevail on the defamation claim. We stated that because the establishment of the wrongdoer's liability on the underlying tort was a condition precedent to recovery on the mental distress claim, the plaintiff did not have a viable cause of action. Negligent infliction of emotional distress is not an independent tort, but is more properly to be perceived as subordinate to the principal cause of action. Id. at 268. We recently applied the underlying tort principle in Rubin v. Matthews International Corp., 503 A.2d 694 (Me.1986). In Rubin, the plaintiff sought to recover damages for emotional or mental distress that she suffered as the result of the defendant's failure to make a timely delivery of a memorial stone for a graveside unveiling ceremony. One of her claims was based on the negligent infliction of mental distress. We held that the plaintiff could not recover damages because no underlying tort existed. [M]ental distress is insufficient in and of itself to establish the harm necessary to make negligence actionable, without either accompanying physical consequences, or an independent underlying tort. Id. at 698 (citing Prosser and Keeton on Torts § 54, at 361-62 (5th ed. 1984); 2 F. Harper & F. James, The Law of Torts § 18.4, at 1031-32 (1956)). [3] In the present case, the plaintiff claims to have suffered only mental and emotional distress as a result of the defendant's negligence. No physical impact occurred. Because mental distress is insufficient by itself to establish harm, an essential element of actionable negligence, no underlying tort exists. Since an underlying tort is a condition precedent to the recovery of damages for the negligent infliction of mental distress, the defendants argue that the plaintiff's claim should be barred. We hold that because of the nature of the psychotherapist-patient relationship, an action may be maintained by a patient for serious mental distress caused by the negligence of his therapist despite the absence of an underlying tort. We are persuaded that this position is sound for the following reason. The rationale for requiring an independently actionable tort is that absent either tactile contact or the usual indicia of harm, no objective evidence exists that the defendant's negligence actually has caused the plaintiff to suffer emotional distress. [4] There is little likelihood, however, that objective evidence of mental distress will be unavailable in a claim by a patient against his psychotherapist. Given the fact that a therapist undertakes the treatment of a patient's mental problems and that the patient is encouraged to divulge his innermost thoughts, [5] the patient is extremely vulnerable to mental harm if the therapist fails to adhere to the standards of care recognized by the profession. Any psychological harm that may result from such negligence is neither speculative nor easily feigned. Unlike evidence of mental distress occurring in other situations, objective proof of the existence vel non of a psychological injury in these circumstances should not be difficult to obtain. As this case illustrates, the severity of such an injury can be medically significant and objectively supportable. We therefore conclude that the reasons for precluding recovery for mental distress are not cogent here. Accordingly, we hold that because of the unique nature of a psychotherapist-patient relationship, a patient may recover damages for serious mental distress resulting from the therapist's negligence despite the absence of an underlying tort. Since the plaintiff's complaint does state a claim on which relief can be granted and there are genuine issues of fact regarding the elements thereof, it was error to grant summary judgment in favor of defendants. The entry is: Judgment vacated. Remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion herein. NICHOLS and WATHEN, JJ., concurring. McKUSICK, C.J., and ROBERTS and GLASSMAN, JJ., concurring. We concur in the result. Nothing in the prior authority of this court contradicts a cause of action for the damages resulting from the negligent breach of a standard of care owed a plaintiff receiving psychotherapeutic treatment from a professional.