QUESTIONS PRESENTED - 1. Under Pennsylvania’s negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) law, a plaintiff can only recover for emotional distress caused by the sensory and contemporaneous observance of an event. Kara Brady saw Ellie Kamper behaving obnoxiously, watched Oliver Tadeo lean over the theatre balcony, heard a crash, heard a yell about someone falling from the balcony, and saw Oliver’s unconscious body beneath it but did not visually witness the actual descent when he fell. Was Mrs. Brady’s experience a sensory and contemporaneous observance of Oliver’s fall? 2. What is the difference between a'smart' and a'smart'? Under Pennsylvania’s NIED law, a plaintiff can only recover if they are closely related to the victim of the accident.…show more content… at 1314. Hearing an incident can satisfy the sensory and contemporaneous requirement if combined with seeing relevant events before and after impact. Id. of the symposia. at 1313 - 14. In Neff v. Lasso, the plaintiff sued the person who got into a car accident with her husband for NIED. Id. of the symposia. at 1306. The plaintiff was looking out a window and saw her husband approaching his truck. Id. of the symposia. She saw the defendant’s vehicle following him at excessive speed. Id. of the symposia. She lost sight of the car and heard a crash. Id. of the symposia. She immediately ran out and saw her husband unconscious and fatally injured. Id. of the symposia. The court held the plaintiff had a sensory and contemporaneous observance of her husband’s crash. Id. of the symposia. at 1314. The court reasoned that “aural perception (hearing the impact) when considered together with prior and subsequent visual observance (seeing Mr. Lasso's car speeding behind her husband's pickup and seeing her husband lying unconscious immediately after the impact).” can create the required “full, direct, and
