Fontainebleau Hotel v. Rosenberg

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “a plaintiff in a non-impact case faces a more difficult task of convincing a court of the legitimacy of the emotional distress and the causal nexus between the negligent action at issue and alleged distress”
• establishing that a negligent actor can still be liable if the harm results solely from the shock or fright
• noting that negligent infliction of emotional distress claims without a physical injury must be based on the zone of danger, bystander theory, or a pre- existing special relationship involving a recognized duty of care and the foreseeability of severe emotional harm
• affirming via equally this harm, Ituah asks the Court to: (1) “order a stay on writ of execution... for the costs” of demolishing the 508 W. Tabor property; (2) reverse the sale of 3843 Fairmount Avenue; and (3
• “NIED is not available in garden-variety ‘breach of contractual or fiduciary duty’ cases. . . .”
• “we must draw lines to prevent unlimited liability to an unlimited number of plaintiffs, notwithstanding the commission of negligent acts.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).