Court Opinion

ID: 9690989
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 19:58:57.298621+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:08.009104
License: Public Domain

ANDERSON, G. BARRY, Justice
(concurring).
I concur in the narrowly drawn majority opinion permitting a claim to be made for the negligent infliction of emotional distress under the specific facts presented here.
I agree with the majority opinion that it makes sense to limit the class of NIED claimants, and I also agree that, under any definition of “close relationship” the mother/child bond at issue here would qualify for eligibility to bring an NIED claim, but I write separately because I would go further and specifically define the qualifying relationship necessary for such a claim in Minnesota.
In my view, the use of a “close relationship” test as set out in the majority opinion is a minimal, at best, limitation on NIED claims. Not only does the majority formulation present the specter of the sudden discovery of a “close relationship” between previously distant parties, it also invites inquiry into, and controversy about, relationships thought to be “close,” e.g., a married couple experiencing conflict or sibling disputes of long-running duration. Surely there will be requests by defense counsel for a special interrogatory on the jury verdict form to address the question of whether the plaintiff had the requisite “close relationship” to qualify for recovery.
Instead, I would require that NIED claims be further limited to circumstances where the third-party victim is a spouse, parent, child, grandparent, grandchild, or sibling of the plaintiff.
While I acknowledge that there is some arbitrariness to specifically limiting the *773class of claimants as described here, these are universally recognized relationships, and, if we discover, over time, that expansion of the class is appropriate, some future court can address a new boundary line to be drawn around the class. Although the “close relationship” test proposed in the majority opinion is in line with many other jurisdictions permitting NIED claims, some jurisdictions have recognized the risk of broadly defined eligibility and have limited the class of NIED victims. See Barnhill v. Davis, 300 N.W.2d 104, 108 (Iowa 1981); Gates v. Richardson, 719 P.2d 193, 198-99 (Wyo. 1986).
Given the cautious approach that Minnesota has used in the development of the negligent infliction of emotional distress tort, I think it far better.to define the class of potential claimants plainly and clearly because, as set out in Stadler, limits on liability must be imposed that are “workable, reasonable, logical and just.” Stadler v. Cross, 295 N.W.2d 552, 554 (Minn.1980).