AALAR, Ltd., Inc. v. Francis

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• observing that the Supreme Court of Alabama “has, however, refused to extend liability so far as to recognize a right of recovery in bystanders”
• explaining that “negligently causing emotional distress is not an independent tort in Alabama but, rather, that it is part and parcel of the traditional tort of negligence”
• providing a lengthy analysis of various theories and tracing the development of the zone of danger test in Alabama
• discussing, among other things, a practical concern over the ability to trace the \etiology of emotional disturbance\
• “Courts therefore have placed substantial limitations on the class of plaintiffs that may recover for emotional injuries.... ”
• includes thorough discussion on recovering damages for emotional distress in negligence cases

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).