Court Opinion

ID: 9737048
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:13:59.795882+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:23:56.136047
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
MESCHKE, Justice.
On petition for rehearing, appellees requested reconsideration of whether wé “should abandon the zone-of-danger rule” utilized in our prior decision in Whetham v. Bismarck Hospital, 197 N.W.2d 678 (N.D. 1972). In a response requested by this court, appellants agreed that “a specific determination should be made as to whether North Dakota is going to follow the current trend in the law and overrule the ‘zone of danger’ test” applied in Whetham.
We adhere to our decision, but we do not overrule Whetham. Whetham, supra, involved only a claim for emotional and mental shock induced solely by the claimant’s apprehension of negligently caused injury to a third person. That is not true here. “As indicated in Chapter 47, emotional distress may be an element of damages in many cases where other interests have been invaded, and tort liability has arisen apart from the emotional distress.” Restatement, Torts (Second), § 46 at Comment (b).
In this case, akin to a wrongful death claim, we held that the parents of Jennifer Grosz are entitled to seek damages for loss of society and companionship for the devastating injuries to their daughter caused by the alleged negligence of the defendants. We view emotional distress as a constituent of those damages.
Therefore, we deny the petitions for rehearing.
ERICKSTAD, C.J., LEVINE and GIERKE, JJ., and VERNON R. PEDERSON, Surrogate Justice, concur.
VERNON R. PEDERSON, Surrogate Justice, sitting in place of VANDE WALLE, J., disqualified.