US Bodily Injury News And finally…
US Supreme Court declines to address issue of negligent infliction of emotional distress Stacy v. Rederiet Otto Danielsen, 609 F.3d 1003, 2010 AMC 1782 (9th Cir. 2010)…now what?
actually see, he was not in the zone of danger, and did not learn of the death of a fellow fisherman until a full four days after the
incident.The decision was not unexpected, but was nevertheless disappointing. Of over 500 petitions for certiorari reviewed that day, only six were granted.
Linda Wright Claims Executive
Our readers may recall that this case arose from Stacy’s claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress when he learned four days after the event that a fisherman he did not know died in a collision with defendant’s ship (See BI News November 2010). The US Supreme Court, unfortunately, denied the petition for certiorari in Rederiet Otto Danielsen v. Stacy (No. 10-791). The case must now proceed through discovery and trial before any further appeal can be
taken.This means that plaintiff is allowed to produce evidence of his emotional distress despite the fact that he did not
The US Supreme Court is not obligated to and did not give any explanation for its denial of the petition. One reason may have been because the appeal was interlocutory; an interim, discretionary appeal to resolve an important issue of law. The shipowner is allowed to seek certiorari again if they are found liable at trial. If the precedent is applied successfully in future cases, the Supreme Court might agree to hear one of those and bring sanity back to the West Coast.
Already plaintiffs’ attorneys on the West Coast are bringing the case to the attention of others on blogs, in classrooms, and seminars, touting the new case law for its potential to considerably expand the list of plaintiffs claiming negligent infliction of emotional distress.
13
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16