An act relating to negligence actions and post-traumatic stress disorder
H.543 would change Vermont negligence law by allowing a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) to satisfy the “actual injury” element of a negligence claim. Under current law, a plaintiff must show actual injury to recover in negligence, and the bill expressly states that PTSD alone could meet that requirement in any civil action. The bill is framed as a targeted response to the Vermont Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Zeno-Etheridge v. Comcast Corp., which the bill seeks to overrule.
If enacted, the bill would add a new section to Title 12 of the Vermont Statutes Annotated establishing that, in negligence cases, a PTSD diagnosis may be used to prove the injury element. The change would affect civil litigants, including plaintiffs alleging emotional or psychological harm from negligent conduct, and could expand the types of injuries recognized in negligence actions without requiring a separate physical injury. The bill would take effect immediately upon passage.
The bill would amend Vermont civil tort law by creating 12 V.S.A. § 1036a and altering the evidentiary standard for negligence claims. It would specifically permit PTSD diagnoses to satisfy the actual-injury requirement, potentially broadening liability exposure for defendants in negligence cases and expanding recovery options for plaintiffs who suffer psychological trauma. The measure is intended to supersede the Vermont Supreme Court’s interpretation in Zeno-Etheridge v. Comcast Corp. and would apply to civil actions generally.
Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears strongly supportive of plaintiffs with PTSD-related injuries and is presented as a corrective to a recent court decision. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented legislative debate or vote history to indicate broader support or opposition. The introduction suggests a focused policy effort rather than a contested omnibus change.
The main point of contention is likely whether PTSD alone should count as “actual injury” in negligence cases, especially in light of concerns about expanding tort liability and the scope of recoverable damages. Supporters would likely argue that PTSD is a real and compensable injury that should be recognized by law, while opponents may contend that the bill lowers the injury threshold too far or departs from existing negligence principles. The bill’s explicit purpose to overrule a recent Vermont Supreme Court decision also suggests potential disagreement over judicial interpretation versus legislative revision.