Abstract
In the case of Patsy Slone vs. Dollar Inn, the case at hand involves the plaintiff suing the defendant for negligence that caused her an emotional distress on the fear that she could be having the AIDS virus after she was pierced by a needle while being a guest at the defendant’s establishment. This requires a compensation for damage even without evidence that the plaintiff actually contracted the virus. It is evident from the claim that although she did not have the virus, she had suffered greatly from the trauma and fear that she might have contracted the virus. As a result of the trauma, she had lived with fear that she might contract the virus to her daughter that she had to strain in doing household chores with precautions and doubts. She also had to move to Kentucky just to ensure her daughters were not exposed to the virus in case she was already HIV positive.
This is enough evidence that indicates the mental suffering of the plaintiff as a result of the defendant’s act of negligence. The hotel had neglected their duty to care and this had caused a direct damage to their customer. In this case, the damage may vary from physical to emotional and mental suffering, a situation which the plaintiff suffered. Since the failure of the defendant’s duty to care, then their appeal is not justified and hence, this shows that Slone’s argument on the mental and emotional distress she had gone through is evident and therefore, an evidence to show that she had in fact contracted the AIDS virus is not necessary for her to be compensated. Even though she does not present evidence that she had the virus, her emotional distress is evident from the psychiatrist documents and also her friends and families can testify her immediate withdrawal behavior from the initial jovial and outgoing person.
Barring someone from being compensated from emotional distress is an unfair act for several reasons. First, denying such a person from being compensated is a direct encouragement to those who have violated the duty of care that they are protected unless the complainant has physical evident to sue them (Okrent, 2009). Also, plaintiffs may even fail to undertake physical exams as a result of trauma or fear of what the result will be (Lunney and Oliphant, 2003). Emotional distress caused by an employer who mistreats his employees or overworks them may not be measurable and as such, physical evidence may not be available. Also a case of a malicious husband who causes emotional distress to his wife may not be measurable in case the wife hides the fact in an effort to save their marriage or intruding someone’s privacy without permission which may result to infliction of fear and restlessness cannot be measured (Lunney and Oliphant, 2003). Therefore, as long as the defendant breaks the law of tort which involves acting recklessly causing a negligence of the duty to care gives the plaintiff a right to compensation.
Conclusion
Therefore, the states who have denied compensations on the basis of lack of physical evidence that the person actually suffered from emotional distress should understand that some cases may not contain physical evidence or the evidence may be limited to some extent. Also while ruing such cases, the jury should consider three causes of negligence which inflicts emotional distress which are the defendant’s duty to care, violation of the duty and the fact that the violation had a direct impact on the plaintiff. This should be followed not unless the plaintiff contributed to the act of negligence in which case he should assume volenti non fit injuria (voluntary assumption of risks).
References
Lunney, M. and Oliphant, K. (2003). Tort Law-texts. 2nd Ed. Oxford Press.
Okrent, C. (2009). Torts and Personal Injury Law. 4th Ed. Cengage Learning Press.
