Court Opinion

ID: 9711218
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:26:41.162374+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:02.982977
License: Public Domain

Souris, J.
(concurring in affirmance). If it be assumed, arguendo, that this State’s law allows recovery of damages in a negligence action for emotional distress caused by a defendant’s negligent act not involving a physical impact upon plaintiff, plaintiff’s proofs of such distress in this case would be inadequate as a matter of law upon which to allow a judgment in any amount therefor. The sole substance of those proofs, quoted in full in my Brother O’Hara’s opinion, is that the “incident” upset plaintiff, that she has been further upset by the comments made by her co-employees relating thereto and, conceivably, that she has taken some pills for her distress! De minimus non curat lex. We are obliged to affirm the Court of Appeals’ decision *660whatever may be our opinion regarding the applicable law of recoverable damages in negligence cases.
Under sucb circumstances, tbis is not tbe case in wbicb tbis Court should undertake to “speak with finality” on a legal issue wbicb is vexing courts and legal commentators throughout tbe common-law world. There is time enough for sucb pronouncements by tbis Court when they must be made for decisional purpose.
Affirmed. Defendant may tax its costs.
T. M. Kavanagh and Adams, JJ., concurred with Souris,' J.
Black, J., did not sit.
Brennan, J., took no part in tbe decision of tbis case.