Also known as: zones of danger · zone-of-danger · zone of danger rule · zone-of-danger rule
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A geographic or relational area within which a person faces a foreseeable risk of physical injury from a defendant's negligent conduct. The concept determines whether the defendant owes a duty of care to the plaintiff in negligence actions, including claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress. A plaintiff outside that area ordinarily cannot recover for emotional harm caused solely by witnessing peril to another.
Zoya Zamorano stood twenty yards from a tree that Zephyr Dynamics negligently failed to secure. When the tree toppled, Zoya feared only for her parked car and suffered no personal physical risk. A court applying the zone-of-danger rule would deny her recovery for resulting emotional distress because she was never placed in immediate danger of bodily harm.
Zola Zanders stood on the curb holding her child's hand when a car driven by Zachary Zimmerman sped through the crosswalk. The vehicle narrowly missed both Zola and her child, causing Zola to fear for her own safety before she suffered severe insomnia. Under the zone-of-danger test she may recover for the resulting physical manifestations because she was personally endangered by the same negligent act.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Zuniga Freight's train derailed and released toxic fumes near Zephyr Zola's terminal gate. Zephyr, a passenger waiting to board, stood close enough that the fumes placed him in immediate risk of physical harm though he escaped without contact. The zone-of-danger rule permits him to pursue emotional-distress damages because the defendant's negligence created a direct threat to his own bodily safety.
No. Most courts allow recovery when the plaintiff is placed in immediate risk of physical harm and suffers emotional distress that produces physical symptoms, even without actual contact.
Supporting sources
The zone-of-danger test requires the plaintiff to have been personally threatened with bodily harm. The Dillon approach permits recovery for close relatives who witness injury to another without themselves being endangered.
Supporting sources
Primarily yes. It limits duty in ordinary negligence when the only claimed injury is emotional harm arising from fear for one's own safety or from witnessing harm to another while personally endangered.
Supporting sources
Generally no under the traditional rule, although some jurisdictions relax the requirement when a special relationship or other exception exists.
Supporting sources
…not in the zone of danger. The Amaya case has been the subject of much criticism. The commentators have pointed out that the zone of danger rule is artificial and arbitrary. (See, e.g., 2 Harper & James, The Law of Torts (1956) § 18.4, p. 1034; Prosser, Torts (3d ed. 1964) § 55, p. 354; Comment (1964) 15 Hastings L.J. 578; Note…