38. On appeal, the judgment should be

The elements of a negligence action include: (i) a duty of care; (ii) a failure to conform to that duty («breach»); (iii) causation in fact; (iv) proximate causation; and (v) actual damage. Thus, damages are an essential element of any negligence case. Proof of actual harm or injury is required. The type of damages that are recoverable depends on the type of action.

In a personal injury action, a plaintiff may sometimes «tack on» non-economic damages, including damages for emotional distress suffered as a result of a physical injury. However, when the underlying claim is damage to property due to negligence, without any physical injury courts generally do not permit non-economic emotional distress to be tacked on. A property damage action generally allows damages in the form of the reasonable cost of repair or the fair market value at the time of the accident.

C is correct. The restaurant owner sought damages for emotional distress that resulted from the power company's negligent damage to his restaurant. The jury awarded damages for the lost value of the property and for the emotional distress he suffered as a result. However, there is no evidence that the restaurant owner experienced any sort of physical injury. Courts generally will deny damages for emotional suffering based on negligent damage to property that involved no physical injury.

A is incorrect. Even if the power company's negligence did cause the owner's emotional distress, such damages are not recoverable in an action that is based solely on negligent damage to property.

B is incorrect. Emotional damage and physical manifestations of that suffering are treated differently by the courts, although sometimes they are both at play in a negligent infliction of emotional distress case. However, this is not such a case. This is merely a negligent damage to property action, without any physical harm, and mental suffering does not offer an opportunity to recover.

D is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. The judgment should be reversed, but not because the owner suffered physical harm. On the contrary, the facts offered do not indicate that the restaurant owner suffered any physical injury, only economic loss and emotional distress. Rather, this is a case exclusively based on negligent damage to property, where mental suffering is not recoverable.