Williamson v. Bennett

In Williamson v. Bennett, 251 N.C. 498, 504, 112 S.E.2d 48, 52 (1960), a woman was involved in a car collision, but walked away without physical injury. Id. at 502, 112 S.E.2d at 51. However, she suffered an intense fright during the accident because she feared that she had killed a child riding a bicycle, rather than collided with another car (the other driver also walked away unscathed). Id. Over time, she developed emotional difficulties and physical symptoms, which a psychotherapist attributed to a "conversion reaction." Id. She sought damages from the other driver for these injuries resulting from her "conversion reaction." Id. at 503, 112 S.E.2d at 51. The Supreme Court of North Carolina determined: The defendant was under no duty to anticipate or to take precautions against a mere possibility that plaintiff or other persons might imagine a state of facts that did not exist. The thing that plaintiff feared might have happened on this occasion is entirely remote from what actually did happen. And it was the imaginary thing, not the real occurrence, that caused the fright, neurosis and conversion reaction. Defendant is responsible only for the proximate result of her conduct, that is, for the damage caused by what actually did happen. Id. at 507, 112 S.E.2d at 55.