Johnson v. Jamaica Hospital, 62 N.Y.2d 523 (1984)

A hospital’s duty of care to a child does not extend to the parents for emotional distress resulting from the hospital’s negligence, absent direct injury to the parents themselves.

Summary

Parents sued a hospital for emotional distress after their newborn was abducted from the nursery due to the hospital’s negligence. The New York Court of Appeals held that the hospital did not owe a direct duty of care to the parents regarding their emotional well-being in this situation. While acknowledging the parents’ distress, the court reasoned that extending liability in this manner would create boundless exposure for indirect emotional injuries to families in various contexts of negligent care, setting a precedent with broad and potentially unmanageable consequences.

Facts

Cynthia Johnson and Percy Williams’ newborn daughter, Kawana, was born at Jamaica Hospital on June 8, 1981. After Cynthia was discharged, Kawana remained in the hospital nursery for treatment. On June 16, 1981, Kawana was discovered missing, having been abducted from the nursery. The hospital had received two bomb threats that day. Kawana was recovered by police approximately four and a half months later.

Procedural History

The parents sued Jamaica Hospital for their emotional distress. The Supreme Court, Special Term, denied the hospital’s motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and certified the question of whether the Appellate Division’s order was properly made.

Issue(s)

Whether a hospital owes a direct duty of care to the parents of a newborn infant to prevent emotional distress resulting from the hospital’s negligence in the care of the infant, specifically in the context of abduction from the hospital nursery.

Holding

No, because the hospital’s duty of care extended to the infant, not the parents, and allowing recovery for emotional distress in this situation would create unbounded liability. “Jamaica Hospital, even if negligent in caring for Kawana and directly liable to her, is not liable for emotional distress suffered by plaintiffs as a consequence of the abduction.”

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that while the parents undoubtedly suffered emotional distress, the hospital’s duty of care was primarily to the infant. Extending this duty to cover the parents’ emotional distress would create a slippery slope, potentially opening the door to limitless liability in cases involving negligent care of vulnerable individuals. The court distinguished this case from situations where a direct duty was owed, such as the negligent transmission of information about a relative’s death or the mishandling of a deceased body. The court stated, “That sound policy reasons support these decisions is evident here, for to permit recovery by the infant’s parents for emotional distress would be to invite open-ended liability for indirect emotional injury suffered by families in every instance where the very young, or very elderly, or incapacitated persons experience negligent care or treatment.” The court also rejected the argument that the hospital stood in loco parentis, stating that such a status requires more than temporary care and custody. The dissent argued that the parents’ right to custody was infringed and was the basis for a claim of emotional distress. The majority rejected this position stating, “any right to recover for emotional injury sustained by plaintiffs because of defendant’s negligence in the “care, custody and management” of their child cannot rationally be refused to other parents, relatives or custodians of persons to whom caretakers of various types, such as schools and day care centers, are alleged to have breached a similar duty.”