Torts: New York Allows Claim for Injuries Resulting from Fright Negligently Induced

SINCE the leading case of Mitchell v. Rochester Ry. in 1897,1 New York courts have refused to allow recovery for physical and mental injuries resulting from negligently-induced fright unless the frigft was accompanied by an actual physical "impact." 2 In the recent case of Battalla v. State,3 however, the New York Court of Appeals, in a four to three opinion expressly overruling Mitchell, held that an allegation that plaintiff was caused to suffer "severe emotional, neurological disturbance with residual physical manifestations"4 stated a cause of action; therefore recovery could be obtained for the physical and mental injuries resulting from fright if the plaintiff could prove her injuries were proximately caused by defendant's negligence.5 When English courts were first presented with claims for damages allegedly caused by mental disturbance, they took the position that normal persons do not suffer injury from fright or shock. Therefore if such injuries did in fact occur they were held to be too remote as a matter of law.8 Mitchell v. Rochester Ry.' was one of the first major