Kesner v. Trigg was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a plaintiff can recover damages for emotional distress caused by the defendant's negligence. The plaintiff, Kesner, was a passenger in a car driven by Trigg, the defendant. Trigg negligently drove the car off the road, causing Kesner to suffer physical and emotional injuries. Kesner sued Trigg for damages, claiming that Trigg's negligence caused him to suffer emotional distress. The Supreme Court held that a plaintiff can recover damages for emotional distress caused by the defendant's negligence. The Court reasoned that a plaintiff should be able to recover for emotional distress if the defendant's negligence was the proximate cause of the distress. The Court also noted that the plaintiff must show that the emotional distress was foreseeable and that the defendant had a duty to prevent it. In the end, the Supreme Court held that Kesner could recover damages for emotional distress caused by Trigg's negligence. This case established the precedent that a plaintiff can recover damages for emotional distress caused by the defendant's negligence.

In the case of Kesner v. Trigg, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a plaintiff could recover damages for an injury caused by another's negligence when that other person had already been held liable in a prior suit brought by someone else. The majority opinion found that such recovery was not possible under existing law and denied the claim of Mr. Kesner, who sought compensation from Mr. Trigg for injuries he sustained as a result of Mr. Trigg’s negligence in failing to properly secure his horse-drawn wagon on public roads near Louisville, Kentucky in 1875. Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that it should be within the power of courts to award damages even if they have previously been awarded against another party due to their similar conduct or responsibility for causing harm; otherwise, justice would not be served because those injured would remain uncompensated while others were able to escape liability through technicalities or legal loopholes without being held accountable for their actions which resulted in harm or loss suffered by innocent parties like Mr. Kesner here at issue before the court today.. He further noted that allowing multiple claims arising out of one incident is consistent with common law principles and has long been accepted practice throughout our nation’s history so as not deprive victims access justice when wronged by negligent actors like those involved here today