For this discussion, please simply respond to the excerpt from the "position paper" included in the reading (that is, the discussion of emotional harms that follows the sentence "Consider critically the following position paper on classifying and expanding recovery for emotional harms in tort law."). In other words, does that organization of the material make sense to you? How should emotional harms be recoverable in tort law, if at all?

Position Paper as mentioned above:

Despite the complexity of current legal doctrine, courts have only two general reasons for preventing recovery when a defendant's negligent behavior causes emotional harm to a plaintiff: (a) courts may decide that public policy counsels against recognizing an entire class of plaintiffs, irrespective of the theoretical merits of any individual plaintiff's claim; or (b) courts may hold that the defendant's negligence is not the proximate cause of the plaintiff's emotional harm.

Courts tend to adopt specific definitions and guidelines to help identify the bounds of public policy and proximate causation. These rules can make justice easier to administer, but their arbitrary nature makes doctrinal coherenceand perhaps also individual fairnesselusive.