Which of the following is in the Zone of Danger in terms of emotional distress claims?

The correct answer highlights an important aspect of emotional distress claims known as the "Zone of Danger." This legal concept refers to individuals who are directly threatened by a defendant's negligent actions and, as a result, experience emotional distress due to a perceived risk of physical harm to themselves.

When a person is in the Zone of Danger, they are typically in a location or situation where their own safety is at stake. This means that not only is there a likelihood of physical harm due to the negligence, but the individual also experiences immediate emotional distress from the threat of that harm. In this context, individuals in this category might feel fear for their lives or physical safety, which can substantiate their claims for emotional distress damages.

The other options do not meet this standard. A witness to a car accident may experience emotional distress, but they are not in immediate danger themselves, thus falling outside the Zone of Danger. Similarly, someone who hears about an accident, regardless of emotional impact, has no direct experience or threat to their own safety and therefore does not qualify. The mention of a person within a certain distance, such as 100 yards, is arbitrary without context indicating they are in danger. Each of these scenarios illustrates that psychological harm alone, without the direct threat to