Connection lost
Server error
JOHNSON v. JAMAICA HOSP. 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: Parents sued a hospital for their own emotional distress after their newborn was abducted due to the hospital’s negligence. The court dismissed the case, finding the hospital owed no direct duty to the parents for their purely emotional, indirect injuries.
Legal Significance: This case reinforces New York’s strict limits on recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED), holding that a direct duty to the injured party is required and that foreseeability of harm to bystanders alone is insufficient to establish such a duty.
JOHNSON v. JAMAICA HOSP. 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
Plaintiffs’ newborn daughter, Kawana, remained in the nursery of the defendant, Jamaica Hospital, for treatment after her mother was discharged. On a day the hospital had received two bomb threats, the infant was discovered missing from the nursery, having been abducted. She was recovered by police and returned to her parents approximately four and a half months later. The parents, who were not present during the abduction, sued the hospital to recover damages for their own emotional distress, including grief, mental torment, and anguish. They alleged the hospital was negligent in its care and custody of their child and in the management of its nursery. A separate action on behalf of the infant was not part of this appeal. The hospital moved to dismiss the parents’ complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a hospital owe a direct duty of care to the parents of a child patient to protect them from the emotional distress they suffer as a result of the hospital’s negligence in allowing the child to be abducted?
No. The court reversed the lower court’s decision and dismissed the complaint. 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 voluptat
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
Does a hospital owe a direct duty of care to the parents of a child patient to protect them from the emotional distress they suffer as a result of the hospital’s negligence in allowing the child to be abducted?
Conclusion
This case solidifies the traditional New York rule limiting recovery for NIED, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna ali
Legal Rule
A plaintiff may not recover for purely emotional injuries suffered as 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 reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mo
Legal Analysis
The Court of Appeals analyzed the parents' claim as one for indirect 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 proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor i
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Parents cannot recover for their own emotional distress caused by a
