Gefter v. Rosenthal

119 A.2d 250, 384 Pa. 123, 1956 Pa. LEXIS 536
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedJanuary 12, 1956
DocketAppeal, 335
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 119 A.2d 250 (Gefter v. Rosenthal) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gefter v. Rosenthal, 119 A.2d 250, 384 Pa. 123, 1956 Pa. LEXIS 536 (Pa. 1956).

Opinions

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Bell,

Plaintiff brought an action in trespass to recover damages for the humiliation and mental suffering he alleged he received because at a dinner celebrating his 25th wedding anniversary, his guests were charged a 15^ tip for each coat checked. Plaintiff had ehtered into a written agreement with the caterers that he would pay defendants 15^ per coat checked, and there would be no tipping for cloakroom services. Plaintiff claimed that defendants’ wanton and intentional violation of their written agreement and their charge of 15<i per coat checked, caused him, we repeat, humiliation and mental suffering to the extent of f15,000., plus |5,000. punitive damages. Plaintiff did not bring assumpsit nor was there any claim of physical injuries. This was damnum absque injuria.

[125]*125There can be no recovery for humiliation, disappointment, anxiety, or mental suffering, or emotional distress when unconnected with physical injury or physical impact: Potere v. Philadelphia, 380 Pa. 581, 112 A. 2d 100; Hess v. Philadelphia Transportation Co., 358 Pa. 144, 56 A. 2d 89; Huston v. Freemansburg Boro., 212 Pa. 548, 61 A. 1022.

The defendants’ preliminary objections to plaintiff’s amended complaint were properly sustained.

It is not necessary to decide whether damages can be recovered for mental suffering arising out of a wanton and reckless breach of contract for the carriage or proper disposition of dead bodies or for breach of a contract for the delivery of death messages and similar contracts, since these cases can have no application or relevancy to the case at issue.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Donna Deitrick v. Mark Costa
Third Circuit, 2021
Deitrick v. Costa
M.D. Pennsylvania, 2019
Nicholas v. Pennsylvania State University
227 F.3d 133 (Third Circuit, 2000)
Kazatsky v. King David Memorial Park, Inc.
527 A.2d 988 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1987)
Rodgers v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance
496 A.2d 811 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1985)
Rittenhouse Regency Affiliates v. Passen
482 A.2d 1042 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1984)
Vattimo v. Lower Bucks Hospital, Inc.
465 A.2d 1231 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1983)
Kutner v. Eastern Airlines, Inc.
514 F. Supp. 553 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1981)
Kewin v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company
295 N.W.2d 50 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1980)
Niederman v. Brodsky
261 A.2d 84 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1970)
Molter v. United States
312 F. Supp. 1080 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1970)
Knaub v. Gotwalt
220 A.2d 646 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1966)
Barnard v. Sweet
31 Pa. D. & C.2d 429 (Bucks County Court of Common Pleas, 1963)
Bosley v. Andrews
142 A.2d 263 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1958)
Bosley v. Andrews
135 A.2d 101 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1957)
Gefter v. Rosenthal
119 A.2d 250 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1956)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
119 A.2d 250, 384 Pa. 123, 1956 Pa. LEXIS 536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gefter-v-rosenthal-pa-1956.