Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)

Citation: Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
Parent Document: Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Effective Date: 2011-11-18
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4950936/hawkins-v-diel/ ↗

Full Text

1,227 chars

¶26 The core of Hawkinses’ action is a breach of contract claim. They contend that DMC breached its duty, implied in law or explicit in the lease, to repair and maintain a habitable premise. The question is whether the Hawkinses can recover general damages from DMC under a theory of negligent infliction of emotional distress.3 “A plaintiff who *14suffers mental distress without physical injury may have a cause of action.” Pickford v. Masion, 124 Wn. App. 257, 259, 98 P.3d 1232 (2004) (citing Hunsley v. Giard, 87 Wn.2d 424, 435, 553 P.2d 1096 (1976)). “ ‘It is not necessary that there be any physical impact or the threat of an immediate physical invasion of the plaintiff’s personal security.’ ” Pickford, 124 Wn. App. at 259-60 (quoting Hunsley, 87 Wn.2d at 435). “And there is no ‘absolute boundary around the class of persons whose peril may stimulate the mental distress.’ ” Pickford, 124 Wn. App. at 260 (quoting Hunsley, 87 Wn.2d at 436). “Rather, ‘[t]his usually will be a jury question bearing on the reasonable reaction to the event unless the court can conclude as a matter of law that the reaction was unreasonable.’ ” Pickford, 124 Wn. App. at 260 (alteration in original) (quoting Hunsley, 87 Wn.2d at 436).

Other Sections in This Document (37)

Full Text