91. Is the hospital likely to be held liable to the widow?

D is correct. This question is testing the concept of negligent infliction of emotional distress. Typically to recover, a plaintiff must satisfy two requirements: (i) the plaintiff must have been within the «zone of danger» and (ii) the plaintiff must suffer physical symptoms from the distress. However, there are exceptions where these requirements are not necessary when the defendant's negligence creates a great likelihood of emotional distress. One such exception is the mishandling of a relative's corpse. In this case, the hospital was negligent and mishandled the corpse of the widow's husband. Therefore, she will likely be able to recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress.

A is incorrect. A bystander, not in the zone of danger, who witnesses the injury of another, may sometimes still recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress as an exception to the «zone of danger» requirement. The widow does not meet this exception. However, she does meet another exception and will likely recover.

B is incorrect. Although the widow does not meet the «zone of danger» requirement, she can still recover because the hospital acted negligently in a way that created a great likelihood of emotion distress by burning the husband's corpse.

C is incorrect. There is no such rule in strict liability which holds hospitals liable for improperly handling a corpse. However, the fact pattern states that the hospital was negligent and the widow suffered emotional distress. Therefore, this situation meets the requirements for negligent infliction of emotional distress.