355 Pa. Super. 262 - Stoddard v. Davidson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 2 district · 28 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[A] cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress initially required a physical impact. That element was declared not essential in Niederman[ v. Brodsky, 436 Pa. 401 , 261 A.2d 84 (1970) ] if the plaintiff was in the zone of danger. Finally, the plaintiffs presence within that zone was held to be not necessary subject to the [applicability of Sinn, supra ], Niederman and Sinn are, thus, two alternate methods to establish a case for negligent infliction in the absence of physical impact. However, impact remains the basic means to plead the cause of action. Potere v. City of Philadelphia, 380 Pa. 581, 589, 112 A.2d 100, 104 (1955). If impact is averred, the requirements of either Niederman or Sinn simply are not necessary.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 449 Pa. Super. 667 - Brown v. Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine

2. “[A] cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress initially required a physical impact. That element was declared not essential in Niederman [v. Brodsky, 436 Pa. 401 , 261 A.2d 84 (1970)] if the plaintiff was in the zone of danger. Finally, the plaintiffs presence within that zone was held to be not necessary subject to the presence of Sinn’s [Sinn v. Burd, 486 Pa. 146 , 404 A.2d 672 (1979) ] three elements. Niederman and Sinn are, thus, two alternative methods to establish a case for negligent infliction in the absence of physical impact.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 133 Pa. Commw. 74 - Carson v. City of Philadelphia

3. “It has not been enough that the defendant has acted with an intent which is tortious or even criminal, or that he has intended to inflict emotional distress, or even that his conduct has been characterized by “malice,” or a degree of aggravation which would entitle the plaintiff to punitive damages for another tort. Liability has been found only where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Miniscalco v. Gordon