experienced no fear of being injured and had not suffered any physical injuries, she could maintain a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress because “(1) the death or serious physical injury of another [was] caused by defendant’s negligence; (2) a marital or intimate familial relationship [existed] between plaintiff and the injured person; (3) [she had observed] the death or injury [of the victim] at the scene of the accident; and (4) [she had suffered] severe emotional distress.” Portee, supra, 84 N.J. at 101, 417 A.2d 521. Claims for emotional distress that are either direct or indirect may arise when the negligence consists of medical malpractice. E.g., Frame v. Kothari, 115 N.J. 638, 560 A.2d 675 (1989); Strachan, supra, 109 N.J. 523, 538 A.2d 346. The special 1979) (<HOLDING>). In Carey, the Court considered more closely
holding that parents could assert direct claim for emotional distress against doctor who failed to inform them of genetic risk of having another child holding that family could assert claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress against doctor who negligently interpreted a german measles test thereby depriving parents of opportunity to consider terminating pregnancy recognizing torts of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress holding that doctors failure to inform parents of availability of amniocentesis that deprived parents of opportunity to terminate pregnancy forms basis of direct claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress recognizing claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress when medical malpractice during pregnancy resulted in stillborn child