Case $4$

The four basic elements of negligence are as follows:

Duty of Care

The defendant must owe a duty of care to the plaintiff. This duty is an obligation to act with reasonable care to prevent foreseeable harm. In many cases, the duty of care is determined by the relationship between the parties or the circumstances of the situation

Breach of Duty

The defendant must breach the duty of care by failing to act with the level of care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in similar circumstances. This involves an evaluation of the defendant's conduct to determine if it fell below the standard of care expected.

Causation

There must be a causal connection between the defendant's breach of duty and the plaintiff's injuries. Two types of causation are considered:

Cause in Fact $($Actual Cause$)$: The defendant's actions were a factual cause of the harm.

Proximate Cause $($Legal Cause$)$: The harm caused was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's actions.

Damages

The plaintiff must suffer actual harm or damages as a result of the defendant's actions. Damages can take various forms, including physical injuries, emotional distress, or financial losses.

In legal terms, the concept of "nervous shock" often refers to a claim for emotional distress or psychiatric injury resulting from witnessing a traumatic event. In the scenario you provided, the plaintiff $($P$)$ is suing Mr$.$ Berry for the cost and damages arising from the nervous shock she suffered due to Mr$.$ Berry's alleged negligence. In the given scenario, the plaintiff witnessed a traumatic event, the serious injury and subsequent death of her husband and injuries to her children resulting from Mr$.$ Berry's alleged reckless driving. The plaintiff may argue that she suffered nervous shock as a direct result of Mr$.$ Berry's negligence and seek compensation for the cost and damages associated with the emotional distress. Given the serious nature of the incident involving the crash, injuries to family members, and the subsequent death of the plaintiff's husband, it is plausible that the plaintiff could pursue a claim for emotional distress.