11.7 Evaluating the Elements

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

11.7 Evaluating the Elements. Arizona courts have not specifically defined the “physical injury” requirement, but they have made clear that the element can be met by showing a long-term physical illness or mental disturbance.³² In Quinn v. Turner, the court held that a three-year old child’s post-accident behavioral changes such as grinding teeth and treatment for anxiety were sufficient to defeat summary judgment for defendant on “physical injury” issue.³³ On the other hand, in Gau v. Smitty’s Super Valu, Inc., the court held that weeping and insomnia were not sufficient bodily harm to sustain a negligent infliction claim.³⁴

The courts have also not further defined “zone of danger,” however, they have emphasized the “unreasonable risk of bodily harm” requirement.³⁵ The “zone of danger” rule requires the bystander to have been in such proximity to the accident in which the victim was physically injured that there was a high risk to the bystander of physical impact.³⁶ Under the rule, the plaintiff’s presence in the zone of danger must be concurrent with a fear for the plaintiff’s own safety.³⁷

For example, in Pierce v. Casas Adobes Baptist Church,³⁸ the court held that the plaintiffs could not maintain a negligent infliction claim. There...