C. [§ 3.9] Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress—Not A Cause of Action

• Jurisdiction: Maryland

C. [§ 3.9] Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress—Not a Cause of Action

Maryland law does not recognize a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The Court of Appeals in Wheeling v. Selene Fin. LP, 473 Md. 356, 394, 250 A.3d 197, 219 (2021) provides an historical overview of the doctrine:

In Vance, we observed that "[u]nder the traditional rule, formulated in the nineteenth century, courts did not recognize a duty to refrain from the negligent infliction of emotional distress and therefore recovery of damages solely for mental distress was not permitted." 286 Md. at 496, 408 A.2d 728. We noted that under the traditional rule, "damages for mental distress had a parasitic status; recovery was dependent upon an immediate physical injury accompanying an independently actionable tort." Id. We explained that, over time, courts generally, and this Court in particular, began to modify the accompanying "physical impact" rule because it led to inconsistent results. Id. at 497, 408 A.2d 728. In Green v. Shoemaker, 111 Md. 69, 73 A. 688 (1909), we rejected the physical impact rule, and adopted what was later characterized as the "modern rule" which permitted recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress if a "physical injury" resulted from the commission of a tort, regardless of impact. Vance, 286 Md. at 497, 408 A.2d 728.
In Hoffman, we explained the rationale for the adoption of the modern rule, which allows for the recovery of damages for emotional distress if there is at least a "consequential" physical injury:

Although courts were not averse to eliminating the requirement of an accompanying physical impact, they were reluctant to eliminate entirely the requirement of some consequential physical injury as a condition to the award

...