The legal issues involved with automotive accidents are often far more convoluted than people anticipate. Early in the process people typically assume that it’s simply a matter of culpability. However, there are myriad other factors involved with a claim. One of the most confusing elements is the matter of emotional distress. Determining the extent of physical injury is relatively straightforward. But emotional injury involves far more subjective elements. Meanwhile, the law is meant to remove subjectivity and only focus on the facts. This dichotomy seems incompatible. However, this issue falls under a specific legal banner of emotional distress.
Emotional Reactions to Trauma
One of the first points that needs consideration is the severity of the emotional reaction to the accident. People are often hesitant to admit to their trauma. This is often tied into misguided assumptions about how they’re supposed to cope with the fear and pain. However, research has shown that how people cope with emotional distress after an accident is due to the interplay of a wide range of different factors. Some people cope with the trauma to the extent that they don’t even consider it to be “real” trauma. It’s common to assume that trauma is only trauma if it’s on the severity of, for example, a soldier dealing with PTSD or a widow mourning her lost love. However, trauma is defined by the Center for Treatment of Anxiety and Mood Disorders as “a psychological, emotional response to an event or an experience that is deeply distressing or disturbing”. This definition is useful when considering trauma from both a personal and legal perspective.
It’s best not to overthink the definition too much when considering emotional distress from a legal perspective. Emotional distress is best taken in a very literal sense – it’s a lasting feeling of distress caused by the accident. The feeling can be as severe as seen with the earlier examples of a soldier’s PTSD. And, in fact, PTSD can be a symptom of emotional distress. However, even sleep disturbances can qualify as a symptom of emotional distress. The same goes for issues relating to the interplay between emotional impact and physical pain. If an accident causes lasting emotional distress, then there’s a very good chance that it legally qualifies for a claim of emotional distress after a car accident. However, there’s another important factor to consider – intent. The motivation for the accident’s circumstances defines the type of injury claim.
Intentional Infliction
If someone actively caused the injury as part of an intentional action then it might qualify as intentional infliction of emotional distress. Note that this doesn’t necessarily mean that an individual formed some grand conspiracy to inflict emotional instability on someone. Rather, simply acting with an understanding of the potential result can justify a claim of intent. However, this is exceedingly rare in the context of automobile-related injuries. What’s more common is an accident that results from negligence.
Negligence
If emotional distress results from negligence rather than active intent then it’s known as negligent infliction of emotional distress. This is the category of emotional distress that results from unintentional harm. Essentially, when the auto accident is really and truly an accident. However, the next factor is the most difficult to properly judge. In addition to the criteria of emotional distress and intent, there’s also the issue of tertiary categories that influence the claim.
These additional factors include evidence that impacts the previous elements and location-dependent components. Every state has its own specific factors which relate to the claim. For example, one state might judge the issue based solely on emotional harm while another might require a physical element on top of the emotional. The unfortunate reality of these cases is that there’s typically considerable ambiguity and subjectivity involved. The legal system is designed to remove as much of that as possible. But even with tools such as law, it’s difficult to fully predict in advance how any given case involving emotional distress in car accidents will turn out.
