A court held enslavement exploitation creates a duty of care triggering NIED claims

Evidence

I agree with the court’s holding that Harvard’s exploitation of the enslavement of Lanier’s ancestors forges a special relationship between Harvard and Lanier that obligates Harvard to exercise reasonable care in responding to Lanier’s claim that the daguerreotypes in its possession depict her ancestors. As the court explains, because Lanier plausibly alleges facts that would support a finding that Harvard woefully failed to satisfy this duty of care, thereby causing Lanier emotional distress—an undoubtedly reasonable reaction in these circumstances, with physical manifestations—Lanier has stated a claim for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress against Harvard…. — Tamara Lanier, From These Roots, 1311

Categorization

• DEFINE: Distinguishes the NIED claim theory at the heart of Lanier’s suit — the special-relationship duty forged by exploitation.
• QUESTION: What happened to this concurrence’s reasoning on appeal — did the NIED theory survive subsequent dismissal rounds?
• XREF: connects to: State courts adjudicated liability disputes over leased slave property like any other asset — Lawrence M. Friedman and Grant M. Hayden, American Law: An Introduction, 237