York v. Jarrell
Opinion of the Court
The demurrers and motions to dismiss the actions filed by Pamela and Harvey York, parents of young Joseph, require the Court to determine whether they may maintain a separate action for emotional distress. I believe the law is well settled in Virginia that such an action cannot be maintained unless the emotional distress results directly from a tortiously caused physical injury.
The exceptions that have been made to the above stated general rule are few. Those established in the cases of Hughes v. Moore, 214 Va. 27, and Womack v. Eldridge, 215 Va. 338, have no application to the factual setting at hand. However, the case of Naccash v. Burger, 223 Va. 406, is in many respects like the case at bar. Counsel for the plaintiffs makes a very persuasive argument as to why the court should find this case to be controlling and allow these actions to go forward. It is my judgment, however, that the element of direct injury to the parents, that was found to exist in the Naccash case, is not present under the plaintiffs' theory of these cases. The court found in Naccash that the erroneous Tay-Sacks report given the mother deprived her, and derivatively, the father, of the opportunity to accept or reject the
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.