Which statement best describes the zone-of-danger rule for intentional infliction of emotional distress in New York?

• A. A plaintiff may recover only if there is a physical injury to the plaintiff.
• B. A plaintiff may recover for emotional distress only if the distress arises from witnessing the injury to a stranger.
• C. A plaintiff in the zone of danger may recover for shock from contemporaneous observation of serious injury or death to a family member if the conduct was a substantial factor in causing that injury.
• D. The zone-of-danger rule does not apply to cases involving family members.

Answer: (C)

The key idea is how New York law handles emotional distress when someone is in immediate danger and how bystander distress of a family member fits in. Under NY’s zone-of-danger approach to intentional infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff who is in the area where they could be physically harmed can recover for emotional distress caused by witnessing serious injury or death to a family member, provided the family member’s injury was caused by the defendant’s conduct and that conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury. So the statement describes that a plaintiff in the zone of danger may recover for shock from contemporaneous observation of serious injury or death to a family member if the defendant’s conduct substantially caused that injury. That captures both being in danger and the subsequent witnessing of a family member’s harm caused by the same conduct.

The other ideas miss important points: emotional distress for IIED does not require the plaintiff to suffer physical injury themselves, and the rule does extend to closely related family members who are harmed, not just strangers. And the zone-of-danger concept is not limited to cases without family members.