Nope. This may sound smug but I know I’m right. See Jane W. v. President & Directors of Georgetown Coll., 863 A.2d 821, 826–27 (D.C. 2004).
You must be in physical danger to claim negligent infliction of emotional distress. This case is where the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled that if you were not in danger then you’re not entitled to damages.
I assume you have legal experience based on your posts, but I’m not sure if what your saying is exactly right for all jurisdictions. A quick googling shows that it varies from state to state, and that the physical harm can be things like lost sleep and decreased appetite.
No, that’s not an authority. “Authority” means a court case or statute. It doesn’t matter whether I’m “right for all jurisdictions”. The incident didn’t take place in all jurisdictions. It took place in exactly one, which is DC. That’s why I cited the DC Court of Appeals. I am right for this case, and that’s all that really matters. It doesn’t matter whether I’m right if the case had hypothetically happened in California or New York.
I didn’t downvote those posts, but I did feel like the thread was aggressive when it didn’t need to be. I’d guess that a flippant/passive aggressive remark like “New to US civil law?” was (rightfully) upsetting to the user who clearly has an understanding of the law here. That user responded in kind, but then kept responding to other users in a fairly aggressive fashion, even when those other users were communicating in alright way.
I totally get it. I’d be pissed if, after posting a well reasoned and researched comment on Kubernetes, someone responded saying “new to container orchestration?” I try (and sometimes fail) to express the more vulnerable feelings underneath anger online after dealing with my anger in meatspace. I find it results in more productive conversations. It’s hard to do that, so I’m not casting aspersions. I think that’s probably why people downvoted in this case though. People try to suppress and avoid aggression and conflict.
Nope. This may sound smug but I know I’m right. See Jane W. v. President & Directors of Georgetown Coll., 863 A.2d 821, 826–27 (D.C. 2004).
You must be in physical danger to claim negligent infliction of emotional distress. This case is where the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled that if you were not in danger then you’re not entitled to damages.
I assume you have legal experience based on your posts, but I’m not sure if what your saying is exactly right for all jurisdictions. A quick googling shows that it varies from state to state, and that the physical harm can be things like lost sleep and decreased appetite.
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/personal-injury/negligent-infliction-emotional-distress/
No, that’s not an authority. “Authority” means a court case or statute. It doesn’t matter whether I’m “right for all jurisdictions”. The incident didn’t take place in all jurisdictions. It took place in exactly one, which is DC. That’s why I cited the DC Court of Appeals. I am right for this case, and that’s all that really matters. It doesn’t matter whether I’m right if the case had hypothetically happened in California or New York.
I appreciate you.
Loving that the only dude who posted valid legal precedent in the same jurisdiction is getting down voted.
And then Lemmy users will complain how ass Reddit is for exactly this lmao.
I didn’t downvote those posts, but I did feel like the thread was aggressive when it didn’t need to be. I’d guess that a flippant/passive aggressive remark like “New to US civil law?” was (rightfully) upsetting to the user who clearly has an understanding of the law here. That user responded in kind, but then kept responding to other users in a fairly aggressive fashion, even when those other users were communicating in alright way.
I totally get it. I’d be pissed if, after posting a well reasoned and researched comment on Kubernetes, someone responded saying “new to container orchestration?” I try (and sometimes fail) to express the more vulnerable feelings underneath anger online after dealing with my anger in meatspace. I find it results in more productive conversations. It’s hard to do that, so I’m not casting aspersions. I think that’s probably why people downvoted in this case though. People try to suppress and avoid aggression and conflict.
I gave it some thought and you are right. I will edit my comments to remove the snark.