Warning

Info

Table of Contents
Lan, SLS '24 |

0 0

Back to briefs

Falzone v. Busch

(1965)

Supreme Court of New Jersey - 45 N.J. 559

Tags: Torts, Injury

tl;dr:

Plaintiff saw her husband get hit by a car and suffered injuries as a result of fear and emotional distress; Court holds that Plaintiff can recover damages despite the lack of physical impact.

Video Summary

ICRAIssue, Conclusion, Rule, Analysis for Falzone v. Busch

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Falzone v. Busch case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Facts & HoldingFalzone v. Busch case brief facts & holding

Facts:Mr. and Mrs. Falzone were driving when Mr. Falzone got...

Holding:The New Jersey Supreme Court held that Plaintiff could request...

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Falzone v. Busch case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition

Font size -+
Falzone v. Busch | Case Brief DeepDive
Majority opinion, author: Proctor, J.
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The legal case involves whether a plaintiff can recover damages for physical injury resulting from fear caused by a negligent defendant, even if there was no physical impact. The Law Division granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, citing the existing New Jersey rule that a physical impact on the plaintiff is necessary to sustain a negligence action. However, recent medical evidence has shown that physical injuries can result from fright in a person of normal health. Therefore, the issue of causation should be determined by medical evidence, rather than decided as a matter of law. Recovery is allowed for physical injury with any impact, however slight, and where physical suffering resulted from a willfully caused emotional disturbance. The court and jury should weed out dishonest claims, but the difficulty of proof should not prevent the plaintiff from attempting to convince the trier of fact of the truth of their claim. The no impact rule is not effective in preventing fraudulent claims.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Falzone v. Busch case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

🤯 High points 🤯Key points contributed by students on LSD

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Falzone v. Busch case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

LSD+ Case Briefs

Features

  • DeepDive for detailed case analysis
  • Over 50,000 existing case briefs
  • Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
  • Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
  • Social learning with chat and high points

Over 50,000 Cases Briefed

LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.

14-Day Free Trial

Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.

Integrated Legal Dictionary

Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.

Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.

DeepDive

DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.

Brief anything. Instantly.

Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.

Social Learning with Chat and High Points

Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.

Real-Time Brief Feedback

Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.

Falzone v. Busch

Chat for Falzone v. Busch
brief-567
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.