FALZONE V. BUSCH
214 A.2d 12 (1965)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a dispute over a recovery for bodily injury but there was no
physical impact. Falzone (P1) became ill after seeing Busch's (D) car strike P1's husband as
she sat in a car nearby. The court granted D's motion for summary judgment on P1's claims,
finding that because there was no physical impact, she could not recover for her injuries. P
appealed.
FACTS: Falzone (P) was standing in a field adjacent to a road when he was struck and
injured by D's negligently driven car. Mabel (P1), P's wife was seated in his lawfully
parked car close to the place where her husband was struck. D's car veered across the
highway and headed in the direction of P1 and got so close to her to put her in fear for her
own safety. As a direct result, P1 became ill and required medical attention. The trial
court granted D summary judgment on P1's count in the complaint; where there was no physical
impact there can be no recovery for ordinary negligence. This appeal resulted.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment