In which scenario would a plaintiff NOT usually be able to claim emotional distress?

In the context of emotional distress claims, a plaintiff must typically demonstrate that their emotional suffering is a direct consequence of a specific incident or wrongful action. In the scenario where a plaintiff is suffering from a medical condition unrelated to any incident, they do not have a basis for an emotional distress claim. Emotional distress claims are usually rooted in some form of actionable conduct—such as witnessing an accident, being directly involved in one, or experiencing the impact of an event affecting a close individual.

In contrast, witnessing a serious car accident, being directly involved in a severe accident, or hearing about an incident affecting someone close can all lead to valid emotional distress claims because these scenarios involve a direct connection to a distressing event. The law recognizes the legitimacy of emotional distress in these contexts as the impact is typically linked to a significant traumatic event. Therefore, the fourth scenario stands out as one where the plaintiff lacks a legitimate claim for emotional distress, as the emotional suffering arises independently from any tortious act or incident.