Delta Airlines v. Cook

Citations: 821 N.E.2d 400; 2005 Ind. App. LEXIS 78; 2005 WL 107130Docket: 49A02-0401-CV-77

Court: Indiana Court of Appeals; January 20, 2005; Indiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Court of Appeals of Indiana addressed a petition for rehearing filed by Atlantic Coast Airlines (ACA) regarding the modified impact rule in the case against Bryan and Jennifer Cook. ACA argued that the court's previous decision conflated the modified impact rule with the bystander rule, creating a new standard of “direct involvement.” The court granted the rehearing to clarify this issue but reaffirmed its original opinion. The court acknowledged that the Indiana Supreme Court has established separate criteria for the modified impact rule, which requires physical impact, and the bystander rule, which allows recovery for those who are directly involved in an event, such as witnessing severe injury or death of a loved one. While recognizing the distinction between the two rules, the court noted that the rationale of the bystander rule could apply to plaintiffs who do not strictly meet the bystander definition, as long as their involvement in the incident could reasonably lead to emotional injury. The court expressed skepticism over equating "direct impact" and "direct involvement," suggesting a potential overlap in their interpretations and extending the reasoning behind eliminating the physical injury requirement under the impact rule to the bystander context.

Eliminating the physical impact requirement under the modified impact rule is supported by reasoning articulated in various case law. Crone, J., in Ketchmark v. Northern Indiana Pub. Serv. Co., argued for the removal of the impact rule to strengthen claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress based solely on inherent elements. In Conder v. Wood, the Indiana Supreme Court defined 'direct impact' as the necessary measure of 'direct involvement' with the incident causing emotional trauma, indicating that the manner of physical impact is less critical than the plaintiff's connection to the tortfeasor's negligent conduct.

In Alexander, the court upheld a claim where a physician's failure to diagnose lung cancer led to physical changes in the plaintiff, thus meeting the direct involvement criterion. Similarly, in Bader, the court recognized that a plaintiff's physical transformation due to a 'wrongful birth' claim satisfied the modified impact rule's requirements. The court noted that claims of emotional distress could proceed even when physical impacts were minimal, provided they were not speculative or exaggerated.

Since the establishment of the modified impact rule in Shuamber, there has been a trend to lessen the emphasis on physical impact. The Supreme Court in Groves eliminated the requirement for certain bystanders, emphasizing the need to distinguish legitimate claims from spurious ones based on direct involvement. The reasoning in Groves was applied in Blackwell, where plaintiffs, affected by negligence surrounding their son's cremated remains, were recognized as having a direct impact despite not being bystanders to a traumatic event. This indicates a broader interpretation of direct involvement in cases of emotional distress.

The ruling in Blackwell merges the modified impact rule with the bystander rule, allowing plaintiffs to claim serious emotional trauma without needing physical impact, as long as the emotional injuries are of a serious nature typically expected in similar circumstances. In the case of the Cooks, they have sufficiently alleged serious emotional injuries and have also reported physical changes resulting from the defendants' alleged negligence. Bryan Cook described experiencing increased pulse, heart rate, adrenaline rush, sweaty palms, rapid breathing, and heightened senses during his encounter with Girard. Similarly, Jennifer Cook reported an accelerated heart rate, increased blood pressure, and rapid breathing. These physical changes meet the modified impact rule's requirements, as established by the Supreme Court's decision in Scheid, where such changes were deemed adequate to satisfy the rule. Consequently, the Cooks' allegations are affirmed as meeting the necessary legal standards. SULLIVAN, J. and BARNES, J. concur.