• NateNate60@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    26
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    “Emotional distress” is not “made me upset”. It’s “murdered my wife and kids in front of my eyes so now I have PTSD and need therapy for life”.

    Edit: To elaborate, see Jane W. v. President & Directors of Georgetown Coll., 863 A.2d 821, 826–27 (D.C. 2004). You must be in physical danger to claim negligent infliction of emotional distress in Washington, DC.

    The guy has no damages. He didn’t quit his job over this; he didn’t book tickets for a cruise around the world; he didn’t make an offer to buy a mansion with the money. He didn’t suffer any financial loss whatsoever.

    Courts don’t decide whether someone deserves money because others were unfair to them. They decide whether someone deserves compensation for undue financial loss.

    I expect him to either lose this case, win nominal damages (i.e. one dollar), or settle for a nuisance/PR amount.

    • zaph@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      “Emotional distress” is not “made me upset”. It’s “murdered my wife and kids in front of my eyes so now I have PTSD and need therapy for life”.

      New to US civil law?

      • NateNate60@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Nope. See Jane W. v. President & Directors of Georgetown Coll., 863 A.2d 821, 826–27 (D.C. 2004), which sets the precedent in Washington, DC where this case was filed. The incident occurred in Washington, DC.

        You must be in physical danger to claim negligent infliction of emotional distress in DC. This case is where the DC Court of Appeals ruled that if you were not in danger then you’re not entitled to damages.

        Feel free to cite a relevant DC authority to the contrary if you think I’m wrong.