Opinion ID: 2207277
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Refusal to Permit Recovery of Damages for Emotional Distress.

Text: Plaintiffs also urge that, even if the court did not err in refusing to submit their claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, it should have allowed the jury to award emotional distress damages in connection with the negligence claim. We disagree. It is the general rule in this state that, absent intentional conduct by a defendant or some physical injury to the plaintiff, no recovery may be had for emotional distress. Wambsgans v. Price, 274 N.W.2d 362, 365 (Iowa 1979); Kunau v. Pillers, Pillers & Pillers, 404 N.W.2d 573, 578 (Iowa App.1987). There are, of course, exceptions to this rule. These include the right of a bystander to recover for emotional distress caused by witnessing serious injury or death experienced by a close relative. See Barnhill v. Davis, 300 N.W.2d 104, 108 (Iowa 1981). Another exception has been recognized in the situation of health care providers in situations where their obligation to care for a patient's physical care evokes such `mental concern and solicitude' that the breach [thereof] will inevitably result in mental anguish, pain and suffering. Oswald v. LeGrand, 453 N.W.2d 634, 639 (Iowa 1990). These exceptions do not embrace the economic business losses which plaintiff experienced in the present case. We have considered all issues presented and conclude that for the reasons expressed in Division III the judgment of the district court should be reversed. The case is remanded to that court for a retrial of the damage issues only. Any attempt by plaintiffs on retrial to recover damages for lost profits should be submitted in accordance with the principles set forth in this opinion. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.