Which statement accurately describes the relationship between emotional distress and negligence?

The statement that emotional distress claims must have been caused by negligence for recovery is accurate. In tort law, emotional distress can be a compensable harm when it directly arises from a defendant's negligent conduct. This means that if a person suffers emotional distress as a result of another's failure to act with reasonable care, they may seek damages for that distress.

In the context of negligence, plaintiffs can sometimes recover for emotional distress if they can demonstrate that the negligent act foreseeably caused them to experience such distress. This aligns with the principle that negligence involves a breach of duty that results in harm—if that harm includes emotional suffering, the injured party can claim damages.

Other options mischaracterize the legal standards surrounding emotional distress in negligence cases. For instance, claims of emotional distress can indeed arise from negligent acts, and they do not require the defendant's intentional behavior. Additionally, emotional distress is not solely dependent on physical harm; it can be claimed in the absence of physical injuries if the distress stems from the negligence itself.