In personal injury law, “duty of care” forms the foundation of every claim. It defines what level of caution or foresight one person owes another to prevent harm. But as society’s understanding of neurodivergence—conditions like autism, ADHD, sensory processing disorder, or other neurological differences—deepens, that legal duty is being tested in new ways.
At Alan Ripka & Associates, we believe that injury law must adapt to reflect how people actually experience harm. A neurodivergent person may react more strongly to noise, light, or touch. These heightened sensitivities can transform a “minor” accident into a profoundly distressing or disabling event. In this blog, we explore how neurodivergence intersects with personal injury law, how courts may evaluate damages differently, and why sensory sensitivity deserves recognition in claims for negligence or emotional distress.
Understanding Neurodivergence in a Legal Context
The term neurodivergent refers to individuals whose brains function differently from what is considered “neurotypical.” This includes autism spectrum disorder, ADHD, sensory processing disorder, and other neurological or developmental differences.
In the legal system, however, traditional standards of “reasonable care” are based on the average person. That creates tension: what is “reasonable” for one person may not be safe for someone with heightened sensory sensitivity.
For example, an environment filled with flashing lights, loud noises, or unexpected physical contact might not harm most people—but could cause a panic episode, disorientation, or physical pain for someone on the autism spectrum.
This difference raises a key question: should defendants (employers, property owners, or others) be expected to account for neurodivergent sensitivities when exercising their duty of care?
When Negligence Meets Sensory Sensitivity
Under U.S. negligence law, a plaintiff must prove four elements:
- The defendant owed a duty of care.
- That duty was breached.
- The breach caused harm.
- The harm resulted in measurable damages.
For neurodivergent plaintiffs, the “harm” element can look different. What might seem like a mild event—a sudden alarm, a flashing strobe, or an overly bright store—can trigger overwhelming sensory overload, leading to falls, disassociation, or even lasting trauma.
In workplaces or public settings, courts increasingly recognize that negligence can extend to failure to provide a safe and accessible environment, especially when the business or employer knew or should have known about an individual’s condition.
For instance:
- A store that refuses to disable a flashing light during an accessibility event.
- A school ignoring an IEP (Individualized Education Plan) accommodation.
- A rideshare company failing to train drivers on sensory triggers or communication styles.
In each case, negligence doesn’t just involve physical danger—it involves foreseeable harm to an individual with documented sensory needs.
How Neurodivergent Conditions Affect Damages
Injury claims often include both economic damages (medical bills, therapy costs, lost wages) and non-economic damages (pain, suffering, and emotional distress). For neurodivergent individuals, non-economic damages may be more profound and medically documented.
For example:
- A car accident involving loud noise and sudden impact could lead to post-traumatic stress symptoms or sensory regression.
- An assault that includes unwanted physical contact could cause long-term aversion to touch, disrupting work or daily function.
- Even a minor head injury could exacerbate existing sensory processing difficulties.
These experiences must be properly documented through neurological and psychological evaluations. A skilled personal injury attorney can help ensure that medical experts explain the link between sensory overload and ongoing trauma, making it harder for insurers to minimize those effects.
Courts are beginning to accept these arguments, particularly when supported by objective findings from neuropsychologists or occupational therapists.
The Duty of Care in Public and Workplace Settings
Property owners, event organizers, and employers all have a duty to maintain reasonably safe environments. But the meaning of “safe” is evolving.
In workplaces, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) already requires reasonable accommodations for sensory or cognitive differences. This can include quieter spaces, dimmer lighting, or communication aids. If an employer fails to uphold those standards—and that negligence leads to injury—the case may involve both personal injury and disability discrimination claims.
In public spaces, premises liability law may apply. For example, a concert venue that fails to provide clear warning about strobe lighting, or a restaurant that disregards a known allergy or sensory issue, could face liability if someone is injured as a result.
Ultimately, duty of care now extends beyond avoiding slips and falls—it includes foreseeable sensory harm.
Challenges in Proving Neurodivergent-Related Injury Claims
Even as awareness grows, plaintiffs face several obstacles:
- Skepticism from insurers or juries: Many still view sensory sensitivity as “subjective.”
- Inconsistent medical records: If a condition was undiagnosed or self-reported, proving foreseeability becomes harder.
- Defense arguments of unforeseeability: Defendants often argue they couldn’t have anticipated the level of sensitivity.
- Failure to disclose: If an employee or visitor never disclosed their sensory needs, defense teams may claim lack of notice.
These challenges highlight why expert testimony is crucial. An attorney familiar with both neurodivergent conditions and personal injury law can coordinate with clinicians to bridge the gap between medical reality and legal argument.
Case Study Example
Imagine an office retreat where an employee with autism attends a mandatory team-building event. During a loud simulation exercise involving bright lights and shouting, they experience a sensory meltdown, fall, and sustain a concussion.
The company argues the exercise was “safe for everyone else.” But if the employer knew of the employee’s sensory accommodations—or ignored requests for alternative participation—the case could involve negligent infliction of emotional distress and failure to accommodate under the ADA.
This example underscores a key truth: negligence doesn’t always involve intent—it involves preventable disregard.
How Attorneys Evaluate Neurodivergent Injury Claims
A skilled law firm will:
- Review all medical, occupational, and therapy records to document pre- and post-incident differences.
- Work with neurological and psychological experts to show how trauma exacerbated sensory issues.
- Assess ADA compliance, internal policy violations, or employer neglect.
- Quantify non-economic damages, including heightened emotional distress or sensory regression.
At Alan Ripka & Associates, we take a trauma-informed approach—recognizing that “invisible injuries” often leave the deepest scars.
Why Recognition Matters
Neurodivergent individuals deserve equal protection under personal injury law. A one-size-fits-all approach to harm erases legitimate suffering. Recognizing sensory sensitivity as part of damages not only strengthens cases—it advances justice.
Every client’s perception of pain, fear, or overstimulation is real and measurable. The law must evolve to include those experiences, not minimize them.
Conclusion: Protecting Neurodivergent Clients in a Neurotypical Legal System
Personal injury law has long centered on the “reasonable person.” But as science and empathy reshape our understanding of the brain, that standard must expand. Neurodivergent individuals experience injury, trauma, and recovery differently—and they deserve a system that reflects that reality.
If you or a loved one suffered harm that was magnified by sensory sensitivity, you may have grounds for compensation. Whether it’s workplace neglect, unsafe premises, or emotional trauma, your case deserves careful, informed advocacy.
At Alan Ripka & Associates, we combine legal precision with compassion. Our team understands how neurodivergence affects both evidence and outcome—and we’re committed to making your story heard in court.
📞 Call us today at (212) 661-7010 or visit AlanRipka.com to schedule your confidential consultation.
Your experience matters—and we’re here to make sure it counts where it matters most: in the eyes of the law.
