Majors v. Hillebrand
349 P.3d 1283
Kan. Ct. App.2015Background
- On June 23, 2011, Majors’ vehicle was struck by a KDOT employee’s large truck; Majors’ 6‑year‑old daughter, Hailey, suffered serious head injuries but survived.
- Majors witnessed his daughter immediately after the crash, believed she was dead, and pulled her from the vehicle; his vehicle sustained major passenger‑side damage.
- Majors experienced nightmares the night after the crash and developed anxiety, panic, and other symptoms months later; he ultimately was diagnosed with PTSD by a behavioral health counselor and a licensed psychologist.
- Majors had no contemporaneous physical injury from the collision, received no immediate medical treatment for physical injuries, and presented no evidence that his emotional distress produced a qualifying physical injury within a short time after the event.
- Defendants (KDOT) moved for summary judgment; the district court granted it based on Kansas precedent requiring a qualifying physical injury for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED); Majors appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NIED is barred because Majors had no physical injury | Majors: modern understanding of PTSD and objective diagnosis should make severe mental injuries (PTSD) recoverable without a separate physical injury | KDOT: Kansas precedent requires a qualifying physical injury that accompanies or results from emotional distress; none exists here | Court: Affirmed — Kansas law requires a qualifying physical injury for NIED and none occurred |
| Whether PTSD/symptoms can satisfy "physical injury" requirement | Majors: PTSD is a diagnosable, non‑trivial disorder that should qualify | KDOT: PTSD and related symptoms are generalized physical manifestations insufficient under Kansas caselaw | Court: PTSD and symptoms held insufficient to meet Kansas physical‑injury rule |
| Whether exceptions (willful/wanton, corpse mishandling, short time‑span) apply | Majors: argues rule should be abolished generally (no specific exception asserted) | KDOT: no applicable exceptions; conduct not willful/wanton and injury manifestations were not within short span | Court: No exception applied; summary judgment proper |
| Whether appellate court can discard Kansas physical‑injury rule | Majors: urges abandonment of the rule as outdated | KDOT: stare decisis requires following Kansas Supreme Court precedent | Court: Declined to overturn precedent — change must come from Kansas Supreme Court |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Scheffler, 242 Kan. 857 (Kansas Supreme Court 1988) (establishes that a qualifying physical injury is required for NIED)
- Hoard v. Shawnee Mission Medical Center, 233 Kan. 267 (Kansas Supreme Court 1983) (physical injury must directly result from emotional distress and appear within a short time span)
- Grube v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 256 Kan. 519 (Kansas Supreme Court 1994) (reiterates requirement of physical injury or impact for NIED)
- Ware v. ANW Special Educ. Co‑op No. 603, 39 Kan. App. 2d 397 (Kansas Court of Appeals 2008) (generalized physical symptoms associated with PTSD are insufficient for NIED)
- Crist v. Hunan Palace, Inc., 277 Kan. 706 (Kansas Supreme Court 2004) (discusses stare decisis and its role in maintaining precedent)
- Squeo v. Norwalk Hosp. Ass'n, 316 Conn. 558 (Connecticut Supreme Court 2015) (discusses modern trend abandoning strict physical‑injury/impact rules in favor of foreseeability approaches)
- Miller v. Johnson, 295 Kan. 636 (Kansas Supreme Court 2012) (explains when the Kansas Supreme Court will depart from its own precedent)