Got accident victim brain matter on her clothes
By Guy Page
The Vermont Supreme Court ruled March 22 that a Good Samaritan who suffered post-traumatic stress at the scene of a fatal accident is not entitled to recover civil damages requested.
The court ruling summarizes the facts of the case.
In March, 2016, Jennifer Zeno-Ethridge was driving southbound on Rte 7 in Middlebury as Eustis Cable workers were installing utility cables on Route 7 in Middlebury on behalf of Comcast Corporation.
A Eustis Cable utility truck was parked on the side of the road, and Eustis Cable workers were being assisted by flaggers from Green Mountain Flagging. As Zeno-Ethridge drove past the site, she noticed the utility truck moving in reverse towards a flagger.
She then saw the flagger get pulled down and sucked under the truck. Sensing his imminent danger, she drove her car behind the truck in an attempt to prevent the truck from continuing to back up. When she stopped her car and put it in park, she was about one car length behind the truck, which by then had stopped moving.
She was in no danger herself. After the truck had stopped, she got out of her car and rushed toward the scene. By the time she reached the truck, however, it was too late.
The flagger’s skull had been crushed and his body mutilated underneath the truck. Plaintiff approached the cab of the truck and told the driver not to get out because of the gruesomeness of the scene. As she did so, blood and brain matter from the flagger got onto her pants and shoes. She then went back to her car to get a blanket to cover the flagger’s body.
Five months later, Zeno-Ethridge was diagnosed with PTSD, a condition she had never suffered before.
Zeno-Ethridge and husband sued defendants Eustin Cable and Comcast based on three common-law tort claims: negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED), negligence, and loss of consortium. The trial court disagreed.
The high court upheld the lower court decision, saying no physical harm was done. “There must be some limit on recovery for emotional harms. We acknowledge the gruesome nature of this incident, and its effect on plaintiff, but decline to eliminate the longstanding physical-impact requirement.”
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Court
God bless the Good Samaritans who selflessly involve themselves in dangerous and distressing circumstances, but part of the endeavor is dealing with the potential future repercussions, sometimes unforeseen. The court acted with common sense in this matter, which is not really what one would expect in modern-day Vermont, where leftist culture typically fabricates or exacerbates victimhood and finds fault where none exists. In the case of PTSD, defining and diagnosing it is subjective and controversial and affixing the cause to a particular event is equally vague. Perhaps the plaintiff can focus on the value of their own good intentions despite the outcome and see that as a positive experience both for them and for setting an example for others to act similarly in such a scenario. The “physical impact” requirement cited should absolutely be maintained to avoid such abuse of our civil court system.