Citation: 48 Cal. 3d 644 (1989).
Summary: Plaintiff’s son was struck by an automobile driven by Defendant. Plaintiff was nearby, but neither saw nor heard the accident. She found out about the accident from her daughter and rushed to the scene shortly after the accident. There, she saw her son bloody and unconscious and believed him to be dead (the son survived). Plaintiff sued Defendant for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff alleged that she suffered great emotional disturbance, shock, and injury to her nervous system as a result of these events, and that the emotional injury was proximately caused by Defendant’s negligence.
The trial court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, but the court of appeal reversed.
The issue presented to the California Supreme Court was whether a mother, who did not witness the accident in which her son was injured, may recover damages from the negligent driver for emotional distress she suffered when she arrived at the accident scene. The Court ruled in the negative and reversed the ruling of the court of appeal.
The Court held that to recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress under the bystander theory of recovery, a plaintiff must prove each of the following:
- Plaintiff is closely related to the injured victim;
- Plaintiff was present at the scene of the injury-producing event at the time it occurred and was then aware that it was causing injury to the victim; and
- As a result, Plaintiff suffered emotional distress beyond that which would be anticipated in a disinterested witness.