Court Opinion

ID: 9735556
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:23:33.686531+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:59.924473
License: Public Domain

FRIEDLANDER, Judge,
concurring.
I agree with Judge Garrard that damages for emotional and mental anguish are not recoverable, but for a different reason. I believe that Indiana’s modified impact rule precludes the recovery of such damages in the instant case.
As an initial matter, I agree with my colleagues that to the extent proved, the John-sons are entitled to recover damages for the extraordinarily medical and other expense related to the care and treatment of Kelly’s congenital defects, Connie’s pain and suffering, and the medical and other expenses related to her continued pregnancy and the birth of Kelly, and Ronald’s loss of consortium. Whether the Johnsons received any benefit from the loss of the opportunity to terminate the pregnancy that would offset the damages is to be determined by the jury.
With regard to damages for emotional and mental anguish, in Shuamber v. Henderson, 579 N.E.2d 452 (Ind.1991), the supreme court modified the impact rule that had previously governed the availability of damages for emotional distress in Indiana. Under the new rule:
When ... a plaintiff sustains a direct impact by the negligence of another and, by virtue of that direct involvement sustains an emotional trauma which is serious in nature and of a kind and extent normally expected to occur in a reasonable person, we hold that such a plaintiff is entitled to maintain an action to recover for that emotional trauma without regard to whether the emotional trauma arises out of or accompanies any physical injury to the plaintiff.
Id. at 456. I acknowledge that some states that recognize the impact rule have determined that an exception to the rule would be made for the tort of wrongful birth. See Kush, 616 So.2d 415. I reject this proposition, however. In my view, pursuant to Indiana’s modified impact rule, damages for emotional distress are not recoverable for the tort of wrongful birth because the parents’ injuries did not result from a direct impact.
Accordingly, except with respect to the availability of damages for emotional distress, I agree that the trial court’s denial of Bader’s motion for summary judgment should be affirmed.
OPINION DISSENTING IN PART AND CONCURRING IN PART