Palmer v. Nan King Restaurant, Inc.

Summary

The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment against the plaintiff’s negligence and products-liability claims seeking damages for emotional distress after she bit into a used bandage in restaurant food. The court held that, under New Hampshire negligence law, emotional-distress recovery requires objectively verifiable physical symptoms, which the plaintiff had not shown. The court remanded for consideration of the plaintiff’s separate breach-of-warranty claim.

Holdings

1. A plaintiff seeking damages for emotional distress under a traditional negligence theory must demonstrate that physical injury resulted from the distress, including objectively verifiable physical symptoms; anxiety and emotional upset alone are insufficient.
2. Physical impact does not eliminate the requirement of proving physical injury or physical symptoms when the plaintiff seeks recovery for emotional distress under a traditional negligence theory rather than for personal injury.
3. Descriptions of the plaintiff as concerned, distressed, anxious, and emotionally distraught, together with an opinion that she suffered true emotional distress, did not establish the objectively verifiable physical symptoms required for recovery.
4. A products-liability claim based on the defendant's negligent conduct requires proof of the elements of the underlying negligence claim, including the physical-injury requirement applicable to emotional-distress damages.
5. The court could not affirm summary judgment on the breach-of-warranty claim because the trial court had not specifically addressed that claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether New Hampshire law permits recovery for emotional distress under a traditional negligence theory without proof of resulting physical injury or physical symptoms.
2. Whether the physical impact of biting into a used bandage eliminates the requirement to prove physical injury or physical symptoms for an emotional-distress claim based on negligence.
3. Whether the plaintiff's evidence of anxiety and emotional distress established the physical manifestation required for recovery.
4. Whether the same physical-injury requirement applies to the plaintiff's negligence-based products-liability claim.
5. Whether summary judgment could be affirmed on the breach-of-warranty claim when the trial court had not specifically addressed that claim.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded