Ramirez v. Armstrong

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that only damages for severe distress are recoverable for negligent infliction of emotional distress to a bystander
• following Dillon rule in modified form to “assure[ ] the possibility of recovery by deserving claimants, while at the same time placing constraints on liability of defendants”
• overruled in part by Folz v. State ex rel. Highway Dept., 110 N.M. 457, 797 P.2d 246 (1990)
• overruled in part by Folz v. State ex rel. Highway Dept., 110 N.M. 457, 797 P.2d 246 (1990)
• “If it is found that a plaintiff, and injury to that plaintiff, were foreseeable, then a duty is owed to that plaintiff by the defendant.”
• “If it is found that a plaintiff, and injury to that plaintiff, were foreseeable, then a duty is owed to that plaintiff by the defendant.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).