When claiming emotional distress, can you make the case for an eggshell plaintiff?

T

TheWitness

New Member
Jurisdiction
California
When claiming emotional distress, can you make the case for an eggshell plaintiff – i.e. that the person making the claim is more susceptible to emotional distress due to prior diagnoses (e.g. PTSD) or other circumstances? Or is it that because emotional distress depends firstly on whether a "reasonable person" would feel that distress, that being more sensitive to distress for whatever reason cannot be argued both for the legitimacy of the claim itself as well as for higher damages than would be awarded to a non-eggshell plaintiff?
 
Here are the California jury instructions regarding "Unusually Susceptible Plaintiff."

www.justia.com

CACI No. 3928. Unusually Susceptible Plaintiff

Justia - California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) (2024) 3928. Unusually Susceptible Plaintiff - Free Legal Information - Laws, Blogs, Legal Services and More
www.justia.com www.justia.com

Now tell us what is happening to YOU that gives rise to your question. Without details, I wouldn't care to speculate as to how those instructions would be applied in any given case.
 
adjusterjack said:
Here are the California jury instructions regarding "Unusually Susceptible Plaintiff."

www.justia.com

CACI No. 3928. Unusually Susceptible Plaintiff

Justia - California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) (2024) 3928. Unusually Susceptible Plaintiff - Free Legal Information - Laws, Blogs, Legal Services and More
www.justia.com www.justia.com

Now tell us what is happening to YOU that gives rise to your question. Without details, I wouldn't care to speculate as to how those instructions would be applied in any given case.
Click to expand...
Thanks, this is very helpful! I'm assuming this includes being unusually susceptible to emotional distress as well?
 
adjusterjack said:
Emotional distress can be sustained without physical injury. The following search provides resources that explain the various causes of emotional distress.

california jury instructions intentional infliction of emotional distress at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.
duckduckgo.com duckduckgo.com

By the way, you had another post that disappeared right after I responded to it. Any idea what happened to it?
Click to expand...
Thank you for this source.

Wrt to the other post, I have no idea where it went. Do you mind posting your reply here, if you have it handy? Thank you.
 
I
zddoodah said:
Did you click on the link provided? If you had done so, then you'd know the answer to the question. The two cases cited make it even more explicit.

Reviewing the CACI chapter on emotional distress would probably be usefuI.
Click to expand...
Yes, I did click on it and read it, though I didn't Google the specific cases to read more about them beyond what is quoted in the jury instructions. I'm not sure where my reading comprehension failed me, even looking back at it again.
 
TheWitness said:
Thank you for this source.

Wrt to the other post, I have no idea where it went. Do you mind posting your reply here, if you have it handy? Thank you.
Click to expand...

I don't remember the question or my response (I'm old. LOL). If you remember your question post it in this thread.
 
TheWitness said:
Yes, I did click on it and read it, though I didn't Google the specific cases to read more about them beyond what is quoted in the jury instructions. I'm not sure where my reading comprehension failed me, even looking back at it again.
Click to expand...

Your question was whether the jury "instructions [to which adjusterjack provided a link] explicitly apply to physical injuries," and you "guess[ed] it's not specified."

CACI 3928 states that the jury "must decide the full amount of money that will reasonably and fairly compensate [the plaintiff] for all damages caused by the wrongful conduct of [the defendant], even if [the plaintiff] was more susceptible to injury than a normally healthy person would have been, and even if a normally healthy person would not have suffered similar injury."

As you can see, there is no reference to physical injury (or emotional injury) and makes no effort to distinguish between physical and emotional injury. Therefore, it does not "explicitly apply to physical injuries."

I'm also going to note that you ignored adjusterjack's inquiry in the first response in the thread: "Now tell us what is happening to YOU that gives rise to your question." Discussing things like this in a vacuum is rarely as productive than a fact-based analysis.
 

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top