Stryker v. Commonwealth

How courts have described this case

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

• holding plaintiffs who have not suffered physical injury may recover damages for emotional distress that arises from the negligent mishandling of a corpse
• noting that, in general, courts are prompted to limit recovery for emotional distress because (1) it “is temporary and often trivial,” (2) it “may be imagined and is easily feigned,” and (3
• noting that in special cases, such as where a corpse is mishandled, there “is an especial likelihood of genuine and serious mental distress ... which serves as a guarantee that the [NIED] claim is not spurious” (emphasis omitted)
• adopting a rule \that does not require the plaintiff's emotional distress to manifest itself in a physical injury\ in cases involving the mishandling of a corpse
• adopting a rule “that does not require the plaintiffs emotional distress to manifest itself in a physical injury” in cases involving the mishandling of a corpse
• “When there is doubt, doubleness of meaning, or indistinctiveness or uncertainty of an expression used in a statute, an ambiguity exists.... In construing an ambiguous statute ... the courts may resort to extrinsic aids in determining legislative intent.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).