[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.Rep.854, 859 60, 863 (H.L.).14.Mitchell v.Rochester Ry.Co., 45 N.E.35 (N.Y.1896).15.See G.Edward White, Tort Law in America: An Intellectual History 16 (OxfordUniv.Press, expanded ed.2003); John Fabian Witt, The Accidental Republic: CrippledWorkingmen, Destitute Widows, and the Remaking of American Law 24 27, 51 52 (Harv.Notes to pp.35 40 | 197 Univ.Press 2004); Randolf E.Bergstrom, Courting Danger: Injury and Law in New YorkCity, 1870 1910 (Cornell Univ.Press 1992).16.Barbara Young Welke, Recasting American Liberty: Gender, Race, Law, and theRailroad Revolution, 1865 1920, 189 (Cambridge Univ.Press 2001) ( That a severe frightor shock could produce miscarriage was a given in medical and lay understanding of thetime ).17.Francis H.Bohlen, Right to Recover for Injury Resulting from Negligence withoutImpact, 50 Am.L.Reg.141,172 (1902).18.47 N.E.88 (Mass.1897).The case was retried and a second jury verdict for the plain-tiff was overruled by the appellate court in an opinion by Justice Holmes.Spade v.Lynn &Boston R.R., 52 N.E.747 (Mass.1899).19.62 N.E.737 (Mass.1902).20.Note on Damages for Nervous Shock Sustained in Consequence of a Negligent Act,Unaccompanied by Physical Injury, 50 Am.Neg.Rep.2d, Vol.XI 250 (1902).21.By the late 19th century, neurologists had begun to legitimate diagnoses of hystericalillnesses in women, sometimes under the heading of a condition called neurasthenia, a disease characterized by profound mental and physical exhaustion.What was oncedismissed as hypochondria began to be treated as real illness, although many in the medi-cal profession and elsewhere still doubted its authenticity and regarded female patientsas malingerers.See George Beard, American Nervousness: Its Causes and Consequences(1881); Barbara Sicherman, The Uses of a Diagnosis: Doctors, Patients, and Neurasthenia, inSickness and Health in America: Readings in the History of Medicine and Public Health22, 23 24, 26, 32 (Judith Walzer Leavitt & Ronald L.Numbers eds., Univ.Wisc.Press, 2ded.1985); Carroll Smith-Rosenberg, The Hysterical Woman: Sex Roles and Role Conflictin Nineteenth-Century America, in Disorderly Conduct: Visions of Gender in VictorianAmerica 197, 203 08 (A.A.Knopf 1985).22.Victorian Rys.Comm rs v.Coultas, 3 App.Cas.222 (P.C.1888).See also Coultasv.Victorian Rys.Comm rs., 12 V.L.S.895, 895 (1886) (revealing that plaintiff suffered amiscarriage).23.Prosser, supra note 9, at 55.24.Ewing v.Pittsburgh C.& St.L.Ry.Co., 23 A.340 (Pa.1892); Mitchell v.RochesterRy.Co., 45 N.E.354 (N.Y.1898); Spade v.Lynn & B.R.Co., 47 N.E.88 (Mass.1897); Braunv.Craven, 51 N.E.657 (Ill.1898); Nelson v.Crawford, 81 N.W.335 (Mich.1899); Miller v.Baltimore & Ohio Sw.R.R.Co., 85 N.E.499 (Ohio 1908).25.50 N.W.1034 (Minn.1892).26.See, e.g., Simone v.Rhode Island Co., 66 A.202 (R.I.1907).27.Margo Schlanger, Injured Women before Common Law Courts, 1860 1930, 21 Harv.Women s L.J.79, 114 17 (1998).28.Schlanger, supra note 27, at 117 18.29.By our count, of the twenty-two states that had squarely considered the issue,fourteen states rejected the impact rule by 1925 (Wisconsin, Texas, Minnesota, Califor-nia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Iowa, Louisiana, Rhode Island, Maryland, Oregon,Washington, Nebraska, and New Hampshire), while eight states endorsed it (Kansas,Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio).The his-torian Barbara Welke reads the cases somewhat differently, counting nineteen states asrejecting the impact rule (Welke, supra note 16, at 203 n.1) and listing New York, Massa-198 | Notes to pp.40 45 chusetts, Pennsylvania, and the few states that followed their lead as endorsing the rule(id.at 212).In contrast to Welke, we do not read the cases from Kansas, Alabama, NewJersey, South Dakota, or Tennessee as rejecting the impact rule and interpret the casesfrom Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, and Kentucky as endorsing the rule.Thus, unlike Welke,we would not say that the vast majority of states rejected the impact rule (id.at 203,223), and choose to describe it as rejection by a clear majority. 30.Battalla v.State, 176 N.E.2d 729 (N.Y.1961).31.Niedermann v.Brodsky, 261 A.2d 84 (Pa.1970).Massachusetts weakened its applica-tion of the impact rule in Freedman v.Eastern Massachusetts State Railway Co., 12 N.E.2d739 (Mass
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]