SEPTEMBER 2025 | 31 THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff. “breached his duty to the husband when he negligently struck and injured him with his truck.” Thus, the NIED claims survived.81 Kraszewski further established that he 1) was directly physically involved in the incident, 2) was emotionally damaged by viewing his wife’s injury in real time and 3) had a close personal relationship with his wife. MODERN DEVELOPMENTS Ridings v. Maze The Ridings v. Maze82 case brought us into the 21st century. In Ridings, a young child exited the school bus only to be struck and killed by a passing car. The plaintiffs – the decedent’s parents and siblings – witnessed the horrific death of their loved one.83 They asserted both NIED and IIED claims against the driver and the school. “The dispositive issue ... center[ed] on whether the bystander plaintiffs, who were not involved in the auto-pedestrian traffic accident but say they witnessed it from the window of their house, can recover against defendants for infliction of emotional distress.”84 The court decided they could not and dismissed the emotional distress claims. The court’s decision again centered on whether the alleged mental distress sufferers were bystanders or direct victims. In Ridings, the court determined the plaintiffs to be bystanders and, once more, used the Vansickle case for distinction. “Unlike the husband in Kraszewski, the driver herein did not physically harm Plaintiffs, nor were Plaintiffs even outside or in harm’s way.”85 “Plaintiffs’ claims fall under Kraszewski’s definition of a ‘bystander’ because the basis for liability rests solely on the fact that they witnessed the accident, not that any defendant physically injured them.”86 The court concluded that the facts were much more in line with Slaton, where the “Plaintiff’s emotional distress ‘resulted from the wrong to another’ – the driver injuring their child.”87 Thus, there could be no recovery for either NIED or IIED claims asserted by plaintiffs. Hutchinson v. City of Okla. City But what is emotional distress anyway? Federal courts, including those in Oklahoma, have helped guide us in what exactly constitutes emotional distress. One important case in Oklahoma’s Western District is Hutchinson v. City of Okla. City.88 In that case, a city employee sued the city for NIED arising out of her discrimination claims. The plaintiff’s claim was denied on other grounds, but it did explore what suffering meets the threshold for emotional distress claims. In doing so, the court denied the city’s argument that the NIED “claim must fail because she did not allege a physical injury, as required by Ellington.”89 The court, however, made clear that “‘migraines and stress that affected her work and her ability to sleep’ and ‘[plaintiff] also broke her molar because of her grinding her teeth’” were “all physical manifestations of emotional distress.”90 Wilson v. Muckala The Hutchinson court harkened back to a 10th Circuit case arising out of Tulsa County, Wilson v. Muckala.91 In Wilson, the plaintiff’s sexual harassment action included a claim for NIED. The court denied it because it found a “lack of evidence of physical injury,” explaining, “Oklahoma law obligated Ms. Wilson to provide proof of some physical injury, whether incurred contemporaneously with her emotional injury, or whether as a direct consequence of her emotional injury.”92 However, it recognized that the plaintiff did, in fact, suffer emotional distress in that “she described increasing feelings of humiliation, intimidation, very, very strong subjective unpleasant feelings as well as increasing depression. She had difficulty sleeping, crying, sad, gained weight, lost interest in working, felt not safe working as a nurse.”93 Other Oklahoma courts have characterized emotional distress as “fright, horror, grief, shame, humiliation, embarrassment, anger, chagrin, disappointment, worry, and nausea,” to name a few.94 Also, emotional distress has been manifested where the sufferer “cried [and] lost weight, had a rash all over her arms and legs ... and would shake.”95 CONCLUSION In sum, over a century of Oklahoma jurisprudence on emotional distress has yielded two consistent principles: First, claims for NIED must be brought within the framework of a broader negligence cause of action – they do not stand alone; second, whether the claim is based on negligence or intentional infliction, Oklahoma law generally requires some form of physical manifestation of the distress, either preceding or resulting from the emotional injury. So if your client insists they’ve been wronged and seeks to recover for emotional distress, the answer to whether they can bring a viable claim remains that it depends. The emotional harm must be more than abstract; it must be legally cognizable.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTk3MQ==