OPINION
Mеmbers of the Rivera family (referred to collectively as “the Riveras”) appeal the trial court’s grant of a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by the City of Nappanee (“City”). The Riveras raise a single issue for our review which we rephrase as whether the trial court erred in determining that the Riv-eras’ complaint for emotional distress damages failed tо state a claim for relief.
We affirm.
Christopher Rivera is the father of now seven-year-old Christopher Rivera III (sometimes referred to as “minor son”). In February 1996, Christopher took his minor son and young daughter Carrie to a playground that is owned and operated by City. Minor son climbed a fence that separated the playground from a neighboring swimming pool. After reaching the tоp, the child became entangled in wires positioned on the fence and sustained bodily injury to his arms and hands. Carrie saw her young brother become entangled in the wires and also witnessеd his injured body. Christopher carried minor son to them nearby home where his wife Carol administered first aid. Minor son was later transported to a hospital where his wounds were treated. Thereafter the Riveras filed a four count complaint against City alleging various theories of liability. Count four of the complaint sought damages for emotional distress. In response City filed а motion for judgment on the pleadings concerning count four only. After conducting a hearing, the trial court granted the motion. This appeal followed.
A motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Ind. Trial Rule 12(C) attacks the legal sufficiency of the pleadings.
Richards-Wilcox, Inc. v. Cummins,
Arguing that an assault can provide the basis for a claim оf intentional infliction of emotional distress, the Riveras contend the trial court erred in granting City’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. According to the Riveras their complaint supports аn assault theory of liability. Conceding that the theory is “not explicit, on the face of the complaint” the Riveras argue “[t]he theory of assault as it applies to this case was set оut in plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings ... and at oral argument_” Brief of Appellants at 9. Thus, the argument continues, “the trial court erred in its ruling by not including assault in its analysis of the intentional torts contemplated by the complaint.” Id. (emphasis in original).
We first observe that neither a motion nor a party’s response to a motion is considered a plеading.
State Exchange
*133
Bank of Culver v. Teague,
The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress was first recognized by our supreme court in
Cullison v. Medley,
The Riveras also complain the trial court еrred in granting City’s motion for judgment on the pleadings because their complaint alleges facts sufficient to support a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. In
Shuamber v. Henderson,
When, as here, a plaintiff sustains a direct impact by the negligence of another and, by virtuе of that direct involvement sustains an emotional trauma which is serious in nature and of a kind and extent normally expected to occur in a reasonable person, ... such a plaintiff is entitled to maintain an action to recover for that emotional trauma without regard to whether the emotional trauma arises out of or accompanies аny physical injury to the plaintiff.
Shuamber,
We disagree with the Riveras’ reading of
Shuamber.
Mother and daughter in that case clearly suffered physical impact by virtue of their presence in the automobile whеn the collision occurred. True, as the Riveras contend, no weight was given to this requirement. However, this requirement was not at issue. Rather, the primary issue in
Shuamber
was whether mother and daughter could recover emotional distress damages when their distress was caused not by the physical injuries they suffered but rather by witnessing their son/brother suffer. Acknowledging that mother and daughter had no сhance to recover emotional distress damages resulting from witnessing such trauma, our supreme court eliminated two elements of the traditional “impact rule,” namely: the physiсal injury requirement and the requirement that a plaintiffs emotional trauma must result from her own injuries. As modified, the rule still requires physical impact as distinguished from physical injury. Indeed as the supreme court pointed out “[tjhis rule is known as the ‘impact rule’ because of the requirement that there be some physical impact on the plaintiff before recovery for mentаl trauma will be allowed.”
Shuamber,
Contrary to the Riveras’ argument the “that direct involvement” language of the rule cannot be read in isolation from the “a direct impact” language. The term “a direct impact” qualifies what is meant by “that direct involvement.” Stated somewhat differently in the context of the modified impact rule “direct involvement” and “direct impact” arе one and the same. As we have already indicated the modified impact rule still requires physical impact. We decline the Riv-eras’ invitation to engage in hairsplitting on whether dirеct impact and direct physical impact are synonymous. For purposes of the rule, there is no difference. The pleadings in this case are clear that the Riveras suffеred no physical impact direct or otherwise from witnessing minor son suffer injury. Accordingly the trial court properly granted City’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on the Riveras’ claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Judgment affirmed.