Zone of Danger! Following the COVID-19 pandemic there was a wealth of litigation in the US, including claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress (“NIED”). Articles Stephanie Hayward Published: January 04, 2024 Contact author Download article pdf US Federal maritime law says that where there has been no physical injury a NIED claim for damages has to pass the Zone of Danger Test. Recent case law usefully shows how the courts decide NIED claims by considering public policy and the Zone of Danger test. The intention behind the approach adopted in these decisions is to ensure that the claims floodgates are not opened. This article explains what the Zone of Danger Test is and discusses some recent developments in the case law.  The “Zone of Danger Test” The “Z one of Danger ” test was set out in Consolidated Rail Corp. v Gottshall , 512 U.S. 532, 114 S. Ct. 2396, [1994]. The test limits recovery to those: •    Plaintiffs who sustain a physical impact as a result of a defendant’s negligence conduct; or •    Plaintiffs who are placed in immediate risk of physical impact by a defendant’s negligence. The meaning of "physical impact” In Metro-North Commuter R. Co. v Buckley , 521 U.S.424, 117 S.Ct.2113, 138 L. Ed. 2D 560 [1997] the words “ physical impact ”, as used in the Gottshall Test, were considered. In order to discourage trivial claims, the US Supreme Court decided that a plaintiff must manifest some symptom of the feared disease and not just some exposure that poses a future risk. In the case of Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v Ayers , 538 U.S. 135, 146, 123 S. Ct. 1210, 155 L. Ed. 2d 261 [2003] the US Supreme Court considered two categories of claim: emotional distress claims where there has been no physical injury - which is covered by the zone of danger test, and; distress claims brought about by a physical injury. Recent claims In re TK Boat Rentals , (Civ. No. 14-1545) (E.D. La. March 21, 2018) The District Court