Also known as: zones of physical danger · zone of danger · zone-of-danger rule
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The area within which a person is exposed to a foreseeable risk of physical injury from a defendant's negligent conduct. A defendant owes a duty of care only to plaintiffs situated inside that area at the time of the negligent act. Plaintiffs outside the area are unforeseeable and therefore receive no protection even if they suffer actual harm.
Railroad guards helped a passenger board a train while he carried a package of fireworks. The package fell and exploded, causing scales to topple onto Mrs. Palsgraf who stood on the platform. She could not recover because she stood outside the zone of physical danger created by the guards' negligent assistance to the passenger.
Consolidated Rail Corp. negligently allowed a chemical spill that forced evacuation of a nearby airport. People Express Airlines, located outside the immediate spill zone, lost business when flights were canceled. The airline could not recover because it stood beyond the zone of physical danger created by the derailment.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A driver negligently struck a child in the street while the child's mother watched from the sidewalk. The mother suffered severe emotional distress but sustained no physical impact. Recovery was permitted because the mother remained inside the zone of physical danger created by the driver's negligent driving.
Yes. Courts following the Cardozo view in Palsgraf deny recovery to plaintiffs who stand outside the zone because they are unforeseeable victims. The zone therefore functions as both a duty limitation and a boundary on emotional-distress claims that lack physical impact.
Supporting sources
The zone of physical danger focuses on foreseeability of risk at the time of the negligent act rather than on whether the plaintiff actually suffered physical contact. Some jurisdictions relax the zone requirement when a special relationship exists between the parties, but the core test remains whether the plaintiff was situated where injury was reasonably foreseeable.
Supporting sources
No under the traditional Cardozo approach. The defendant owes no duty to such a plaintiff, so neither physical nor emotional harm is compensable even if the distress is severe and genuine.
Supporting sources
…that the sister was some few yards closer to the accident. The instant case exposes the hopeless artificiality of the zone-of-danger rule. In the second place, to rest upon the zone-of-danger rule when we have rejected the impact rule becomes even less defensible. We have, indeed, held that impact is not necessary for…