Falzone v. Busch

Facts

Charles and Mabel Falzone sued Busch. The court drew the facts from their complaint. Charles alleged that he was standing in a field next to a roadway when Busch's negligently driven automobile struck and injured him. Mabel, his wife, alleged that she was sitting in his lawfully parked car close to the place where Charles was hit. She said Busch's car "veered across the highway and headed in the direction of this plaintiff," coming "so close to plaintiff as to put her in fear for her safety." As a direct result, she said, she became ill and needed medical attention. The car did not touch her, so there was no physical impact on her. She did not allege that her fear came from worry about harm to her husband. Charles also sought damages per quod, meaning damages for his own loss that followed from his wife's injury. New Jersey courts had treated a physical impact on the plaintiff as necessary to a negligence claim since a 1900 decision, Ward v. West Jersey & Seashore R. R. Co. Mabel had no impact, so that rule would bar her claim.

Issues

1. May a plaintiff recover for bodily injury or sickness resulting from fright caused by a defendant's negligence when the negligence put her in danger but there was no physical impact on her?
2. Should New Jersey continue to follow the rule of Ward v. West Jersey & Seashore R. R. Co. that a physical impact is necessary before such a claim can succeed?

Holding

Ward should no longer be followed in New Jersey. The lack of a physical impact does not bar Mabel's claim. The plaintiffs may try to prove that Busch's negligence proximately caused Mabel substantial bodily injury or sickness through fright from a reasonable fear of immediate personal injury.