[ad_1]
An impact rule requires proof of physical harm to claim compensation for emotional distress caused by negligent behavior. It aims to prevent nuisance actions, but some argue it can limit legitimate rights. The interpretation of the rule varies and intentional torts are exempt.
An impact rule is a legal rule that states that people who wish to claim compensation for emotional distress must prove that they have also suffered physical harm. This applies to situations where people sue for damages caused by negligent behavior. Intentional torts, such as defamation, that are designed to cause emotional distress are exempt from the impact rule, because proving that the defendant committed the act in question demonstrates that emotional distress occurred.
The reason behind impact rules is that it can be difficult to prove that someone has experienced emotional distress. People react very differently to different situations, and there is no clear measure of whether or not distress has occurred and how severe it was. Having an Impact Rule is designed to prevent situations where people bring nuisance actions in an attempt to receive damages.
A common example used to illustrate how an impact rule can work is a car accident. If a parent and child are involved in an accident and the child is injured but the parent is not, the other driver can be claimed for damages related to the physical harm suffered by the child, but not the emotional harm experienced by the parent. Conversely, if the parent is injured in the accident, he can file a lawsuit for physical and emotional damage.
Not all regions have an impact rule and the interpretation of those rules varies. Some judges are very strict in reviewing cases to determine whether or not they pass this test, while others provide more leniency. People against the impact rules argue that it is possible to experience emotional distress without physical harm due to someone else’s negligence. For example, someone who witnesses a creepy car crash may have nightmares or experience anxiety around cars without actually being injured in the crash.
Rules of this nature are designed to prevent harassing actions in civil law. While it is generally accepted that people who suffer injury from the actions of others should be able to sue for damages, it is also agreed that some limitations are important. Without limit, the possibility exists that someone could be injured as a result of a recurring lawsuit or a series of harassing lawsuits. It is very important to balance these limits to ensure that legitimate rights are not violated by limits on civil suits.
[ad_2]