Plaisance v. Texaco, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
937 F.2d 1004 · 1991
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 4 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2010 · most notably Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Gottshall (1994), Davis v. District of Columbia (1998)
17 federal appellate · 4 district · 7 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 45 U.S.C. § 51 (Federal Employers' Liability Act) · 46 U.S.C. § 30104 (Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (Jones Act))
Relies on Urie v. Thompson · Dillon v. Legg · Tristani v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc. · Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company v. Buell · Wrenn v. Gould
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) physical injury or impact rule: permitting “recovery for emotional injury provided there is some physical contact;” (2) zone of danger rule: providing recovery for emotional injuries absent any physical contact, which result “from the witnessing of peril or harm to another if the plaintiff is also threatened with physical harm as a consequence of the defendant’s negligence;” (3) bystander proximity rule: permitting “recovery, even if one is not in the zone of danger, provided the complainant: (1) is physically near the scene of the accident; (2) personally observes the accident; and (3) is closely related to the victim;” and (4) full recovery rule: allowing recovery in a negligence action for infliction of serious emotional distress where “a reasonable person, normally constituted, would not be able to cope adequately with the mental distress occasioned by the circumstances.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]hether 'emotional injury' is cognizable under the FELA is not necessarily an abstract point of law or a pure question of statutory construction that might be answerable without exacting scrutiny of the facts of the case. Assuming, as we have, that FELA jurisprudence gleans guidance from common-law developments, see Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S., at 174 [69 S.Ct., at 1027] whether one can recover for emotional injury might rest on a variety of subtle and intricate distinctions related to the nature of the injury and the character of the tortious activity. . . . [T]he question whether one can recover for emotional injury may not be susceptible to an all-inclusive 'yes' or 'no' answer. As in other areas of law, broad pronouncements in this area may have to bow to the precise application of developing legal principles to the particular facts at hand.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the injury complained of [was] not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the alleged negligence. One would not reasonably expect a normally constituted seaman, much less a senior, very experienced tugboat captain, to have the emotional reaction alleged by Plaisance who, objectively assessed, was not threatened by its fire. Further, fires in the oilfield and the flaring of gas were not unusual sights and the other crews were not placed in significant danger ... Our conclusion is buttressed by the observation of the treating psychiatrist that he was baffled by Plaisance’s overall reaction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.