sanction a new damages trial based on an interjected legal theory distinguishing derivative physical injury from underlying emotional distress, which never was pursued by Appellees in the first instance (since, as previously observed, Appellees asked for and received a jury charge on “mental pain, anguish, suf fering, and distress,” N.T., Sept. 14, 2006, at 1266-67). We have no doubt that the bystander witnesses in this case have suffered severe emotional trauma. Nevertheless, the'Social effects of expanding a scheme of liability without fault must be considered capefully before such innovations may be rationally implemented. As Appellant suggests, legislative involvement in addressing such effects is desirable. See Naylor v. Twp. of Hellam, 565 Pa. 397, 408, 773 A.2d 770, 777 (2001) (<HOLDING>). Unless and until the Legislature intervenes,
recognizing the general assemblys superior ability to examine social policy issues and determine legal standards so as to balance competing considerations recognizing standards to determine discrimination are the same under the ra and the ada recognizing this as the general rule recognizing the general assemblys superior ability to examine social policy issues and to establish appropriate substantive legal standards recognizing general rule