Class 18

          Negligence law singles out some types of injury, particularly those involving emotional and economic harm, the subject of this section. We have already studied intentionally inflicted emotional injuries, but the law also recognizes negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED). Courts have at times limited this tort, as we shall see, by requiring that the plaintiff suffer physical consequences from emotional distress, by requiring that the plaintiff be in the so-called zone of danger, or by requiring bystanders to be in a tightly knit relationship with an injured party. Does it make sense for courts to be especially concerned about fraudulent or frivolous claims in this setting? Generally, the rules of NIED vindicate claims when courts expect emotional distress to be especially acute and foreseeable. Does tort law have this right? When and how can we predict that something will cause emotional injury?

          Courts have often limited recovery for purely economic loss. Here, too, the theory is that economic injuries may be too hard to trace to the defendant’s conduct—or too difficult for defendants to foresee.

          As you read the following cases, consider whether the special treatment of economic and emotional harms is justified and what it says about the hierarchy of injury implicit in tort law.