Court Opinion

ID: 9516597
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 23:46:47.271842+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:41:00.320791
License: Public Domain

CAVANAUGH, Judge,
dissenting:
I must respectfully disagree with the majority disposition insofar as it affirms the verdict of $100,000. In favor of the Estate of Shirley Krysmalski on the basis of a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. I dissent on the basis that; 1) there was no evidence to support a determination that Mrs. Krysmalski was an eyewitness to the impact occurrence of the accident as opposed to witnessing the injuries suffered by her daughters as a result of the accident and; 2) because there was no medical evidence to support her claim of emotional distress as a result of the accident. In the landmark case of Sinn v. Burd, 486 Pa. 146, 404 A.2d 672 (1979), our supreme court adopted the rule which confirmed a cause of action for damages in a person who was a bystander eyewitness to traumatic injuries suffered by the child. In Sinn, the claimant was the mother of a child and she saw a vehicle strike the child in a fashion that resulted in the child’s *150death and the supreme court, under those circumstances, affirmed that a cause of action had been pled properly in the complaint filed in that case. In that case it is most important to note that the potential liability of the defendant was grounded on the fact that the claimant was a bystander who was a mother who witnessed the violent death of her small child.
There is simply no evidence that Mrs. Krysmalski witnessed the impact of the vehicle with her daughters and therefore can be said to have been a bystander who witnessed the accident although it is clear that she did come upon the scene very shortly thereafter and was seen reacting to the accident on the scene of the accident after its occurrence. This court has already made a substantial expansion of the Sinn rule in Neff v. Lasso, 382 Pa.Super. 487, 555 A.2d 1304 (1989) where we adopted a before-and-after test which permitted recovery on a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress even though there was no impact visualization where the court found that the observer was a “percipient” witness who had overall awareness of the accident. Further, it is important to recognize that there was no medical evidence to support the experience of mental or psychic damages suffered by Mrs. Krysmalski in this case. This ignores the fact that the underpinning of the Sinn v. Burd decision was a constituent finding that medical testimony could supply an explanation of the experience of mental or psychic damage.

Medical science is able to supply a causal link between the psychic damage suffered by the bystander and the shock or fright attendant to having witnessed the accident.

Sinn v. Burd, 146 Pa. at 158, 404 A.2d at 678.
Finally, in an opinion by Judge Montgomery of this court which examined all of the authorities on the present subject, the following conclusion was reached.

Based upon all of the foregoing authority, we conclude that the element of physical harm or injury is a necessary element of the right of the Appellant mother to recover on her claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress in this case.

*151Wall by Lain v. Fisher, 388 Pa.Super. 305, 313, 565 A.2d 498, 502 (1989).
No one can gainsay the enormity of the tragedy which occurred in this accident or the catastrophic consequences suffered by the victims. There can be no question but that Mrs. Krysmalski had been seriously emotionally affected by seeing her two daughters suffer the grave injuries that they experienced. However, in terms of a new cause of action created under our law, which has the potential of spawning innumerable claims if not clearly and rationally delimited, it appears to me that the evidence was insufficient in two respects; (1) as to her visualization of the accident and, (2) as to the proof at the trial of the suffering of emotional distress.
I next observe that it is convenient to think of the emotional distress claim (which most frequently has arisen when a parent observes injury to his or her child) as a derivative cause of action similar to a parent or guardian’s claim for dependent’s medical expenses or loss of consortium claim. However, it is not. It is a separate and independent cause of action which was first recognized in Pennsylvania in Sinn v. Burd, supra. Thus, the absence of sufficient evidence to support the cause of action would require the finding of insufficiency of the evidence and the remedy of entry of judgment n.o.v. rather than the award of a new trial as when there is only an error in the propriety of the damage element of a cause of action. Nevertheless, in this case, appellant in his post-verdict motions sought only a new trial.
I have examined appellant’s three motions for post-trial relief filed pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 227.1 (GD 86-12693, Issue No. 131848, GD 86-12694, Issue No. 131847 and GD 86-12695, Issue No. 131849) and find that in the introduction paragraph and the concluding prayer of each only a new trial is sought. This issue of the limited relief sought is raised in appellee’s brief, but is not mentioned in appellant’s brief.
The doctrine of waiver is firmly entrenched in Pennsylvania law. It would be a clear violation of the Rules of Procedure if we were to grant relief which is not sought under Pa.R.C.P. *152227.11 which is the general rule covering post-trial motions. This comprehensive post-trial motion rule replaced, inter alia, motions for a new trial and motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict which theretofore were separate motions. Our case stands on the same footing as Dinio v. Goshorn, 437 Pa. 224, 270 A.2d 203 (1960) an insufficiency of the evidence case where the court limited its relief to the grant of a new trial' since no motion for judgment n.o.v. had been filed. Accordingly, I would grant a new trial as to the claim of the Estate of Shirley Krysmalski v. Tarasovich.2
I would, therefore, vacate the award of $100,000. on the claim of Shirley Krysmalski’s estate and award a new trial on this claim only.

. See also Pa.R.A.P. 302:
Rule 302. Requisites for Reviewable Issue
(a) General Rule. Issues not raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

. On the issue of relief sought on this claim of error, most respectfully, it seems to me that the majority (in dicta, since no relief is, in fact, granted), confuses sufficiency of the evidence and weight of the evidence and the appropriate relief applicable thereto, and unnecessarily structures its opinion in response to the confusion.