Opinion ID: 1223875
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Wilson's Claim Of Negligent Infliction Of Emotional Distress

Text: By written order filed on May 17, 1993, the circuit court, without explanation within its four corners, also granted Clark's motion for a directed verdict against the plaintiffs with respect to Wilson's claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED). In its prior oral ruling, however, the circuit court had suggested  somewhat ambiguously  that Wilson's NIED claim, not being parasitic or derivative of any physical injury that she had suffered, was not foreseeable as a matter of law and was therefore unavailable to her. The circuit court further observed that Wilson had not sought medical, psychiatric, or psychological attention in connection with any mental suffering, had exhibited no observable symptoms of mental suffering, and had not expressly testified that she had suffered any serious emotional distress. On appeal, the plaintiffs urge that Wilson's testimony, at the very least, presented a jury question as to her emotional distress claim that was sufficient to overcome Clark's motion for a directed verdict. Clark responds that, even if the [circuit] court erred in dismissing ... Wilson's claims for emotional distress, such error was harmless in that it did not [a]ffect the outcome of the trial, the jury having awarded Wilson no damages in its verdict. Were the trial under review in this appeal otherwise free of error, the issue might well be moot, as Clark suggests. But because we must vacate the portion of the circuit court's judgment entered in Tabieros's favor and remand the matter for a new trial, see infra at section III.C.4, it is necessary for us to address the plaintiffs' point of error on the merits.