Connection lost
Server error
FALZONE v. BUSCH Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A woman feared for her life when a car nearly hit her, causing physical illness from the fright. The court overturned the old rule requiring physical impact and allowed her to sue for her fear-induced injuries, establishing the “zone of danger” rule.
Legal Significance: This landmark case abolished New Jersey’s long-standing “impact rule” for negligent infliction of emotional distress, allowing recovery for physical injuries resulting from fear for one’s own safety, provided the plaintiff was in the immediate zone of physical danger.
FALZONE v. BUSCH Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiff Mabel Falzone was seated in her husband’s parked automobile. Her husband, Charles Falzone, was standing in an adjacent field when he was struck by an automobile negligently driven by the defendant, Busch. The defendant’s vehicle then veered across the highway and headed directly toward Mrs. Falzone, coming so close as to put her in reasonable fear for her own immediate safety. Although there was no physical impact on Mrs. Falzone or her vehicle, she alleged that as a direct result of the fright, she became ill and required medical attention. Her claim was based solely on the physical consequences of the fear for her own safety, not from witnessing the injury to her husband. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant, adhering to the existing New Jersey rule that precluded recovery for negligently induced fright without a physical impact.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: May a plaintiff recover damages for substantial bodily injury or sickness that results from negligently induced fright for their own safety, in the absence of any physical impact?
Yes. A plaintiff placed in immediate personal danger by a defendant’s negligence Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure do
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
May a plaintiff recover damages for substantial bodily injury or sickness that results from negligently induced fright for their own safety, in the absence of any physical impact?
Conclusion
This decision formally abandons the archaic "impact rule" in New Jersey, adopting Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exe
Legal Rule
Where a defendant's negligence causes a plaintiff to suffer fright from a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in rep
Legal Analysis
The court systematically dismantled the three traditional justifications for the impact rule Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non pr
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Abrogates the traditional “impact rule” for negligent infliction of emotional distress