Chapter 49: Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
1. Thurston Hensley vs. CSX Transpoprtation, Inc., No. E2007-00323-COA-R3-CV (Aug. 26, 2009).
The Court's Summary:
This case is back before us on remand from the United States Supreme Court “for further proceedings not inconsistent with [its] opinion” in CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Thurston Hensley, 129 S.Ct 2139 (U.S. 2009) (Hensley II). The case was first before us in Hensley v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 278 S.W.3d 282 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008) (Hensley I). Hensley I was an appeal by CSX Transportation, Inc. (“Railroad”), of a judgment entered on a jury verdict in the amount of $5,000,000 in favor of Thurston Hensley (“Employee”). Employee sued pursuant to the Federal Employees Liability Act (“FELA”), 45 USC §§ 51-60 (2008), to recover for asbestosis, a lung disease caused by his exposure to asbestos while working for Railroad some 30 plus years, and toxic encephalophathy, a brain illness caused by exposure to a solvent Employee used for many years. We affirmed the judgment in Hensley I. Of particular significance at this point is our holding in Hensley I that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury, as requested by Railroad, that Employee’s fear of cancer must be “genuine and serious” to be compensable. Hensley II reversed our ruling, and held that “[t]he trial court should have given the substance of the requested instructions.” 129 S.Ct. at 2142. Because there is a “reasonable probability” under federal law that the error affected the judgment, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for a new trial limited to the issue of damages.
2. Debbie Harris, individually and as next of kin to her son Jeremy Wooten; Christopher Harris, individually and as next of kin to his brother, Jeremy Wooten; Chasity Brown, individually and as next of kin to her brother Jeremy Wooten v. Don Horton and Robertson County, No. M2008-02142-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 14, 2009).
The Court's Summary:
A young man died in a motor vehicle accident on a public highway. The defendant county’s emergency medical services unit, including the defendant paramedic, responded to the accident. Photographs were taken of the accident scene, including photographs of the young man’s body. Three months later, the defendant paramedic gave a presentation to a high school driver’s education class. To aid his presentation, he circulated among the students photo albums containing photographs of automobile accident scenes. The albums included accident scene photographs of the young man’s corpse. The young man’s family then filed a lawsuit against the paramedic and the county, asserting claims for, inter alia, interference with and mishandling of human remains, invasion of privacy based on intrusion upon seclusion, invasion of privacy for publicizing private facts, and infliction of emotional distress. The trial court dismissed the claim for interference with human remains for failure to state a claim and granted summary judgment to the paramedic and the county on the other claims. The family now appeals. We affirm.
The Court's Summary:
This case is back before us on remand from the United States Supreme Court “for further proceedings not inconsistent with [its] opinion” in CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Thurston Hensley, 129 S.Ct 2139 (U.S. 2009) (Hensley II). The case was first before us in Hensley v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 278 S.W.3d 282 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008) (Hensley I). Hensley I was an appeal by CSX Transportation, Inc. (“Railroad”), of a judgment entered on a jury verdict in the amount of $5,000,000 in favor of Thurston Hensley (“Employee”). Employee sued pursuant to the Federal Employees Liability Act (“FELA”), 45 USC §§ 51-60 (2008), to recover for asbestosis, a lung disease caused by his exposure to asbestos while working for Railroad some 30 plus years, and toxic encephalophathy, a brain illness caused by exposure to a solvent Employee used for many years. We affirmed the judgment in Hensley I. Of particular significance at this point is our holding in Hensley I that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury, as requested by Railroad, that Employee’s fear of cancer must be “genuine and serious” to be compensable. Hensley II reversed our ruling, and held that “[t]he trial court should have given the substance of the requested instructions.” 129 S.Ct. at 2142. Because there is a “reasonable probability” under federal law that the error affected the judgment, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for a new trial limited to the issue of damages.
2. Debbie Harris, individually and as next of kin to her son Jeremy Wooten; Christopher Harris, individually and as next of kin to his brother, Jeremy Wooten; Chasity Brown, individually and as next of kin to her brother Jeremy Wooten v. Don Horton and Robertson County, No. M2008-02142-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 14, 2009).
The Court's Summary:
A young man died in a motor vehicle accident on a public highway. The defendant county’s emergency medical services unit, including the defendant paramedic, responded to the accident. Photographs were taken of the accident scene, including photographs of the young man’s body. Three months later, the defendant paramedic gave a presentation to a high school driver’s education class. To aid his presentation, he circulated among the students photo albums containing photographs of automobile accident scenes. The albums included accident scene photographs of the young man’s corpse. The young man’s family then filed a lawsuit against the paramedic and the county, asserting claims for, inter alia, interference with and mishandling of human remains, invasion of privacy based on intrusion upon seclusion, invasion of privacy for publicizing private facts, and infliction of emotional distress. The trial court dismissed the claim for interference with human remains for failure to state a claim and granted summary judgment to the paramedic and the county on the other claims. The family now appeals. We affirm.