For attorneys handling catastrophic injury cases, the harm is often not limited to the person physically struck. Family members who witness a horrific event can suffer profound, lasting emotional trauma. California law has long recognized this specific type of harm, known as Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED) for bystanders, but the rules governing who can bring such a claim have been significantly refined over decades.
Three landmark California Supreme Court cases form the foundation of this area of law: Dillon v. Legg, Thing v. La Chusa, and Burgess v. Superior Court. Understanding the progression through these cases is critical for any lawyer evaluating a potential bystander claim.
Dillon v. Legg (1968): The Beginning of Bystander Recovery
The legal journey began with Dillon v. Legg. In this case, a mother witnessed her young daughter get struck and killed by a negligent driver. At the time, the law did not allow recovery for a bystander who was not themselves in the “zone of danger.” The Supreme Court found this rule to be arbitrary and unjust.
Instead, the Court established a new, more flexible test based on foreseeability. It laid out three guidelines to determine if a defendant should reasonably foresee that their negligence could cause emotional distress to a bystander:
- Whether the plaintiff was located near the scene of the accident.
- Whether the shock resulted from a direct emotional impact upon the plaintiff from the sensory and contemporaneous observance of the accident.
- Whether the plaintiff and the victim were closely related.
The Dillon factors opened the door for bystander claims but also created ambiguity, leading to two decades of inconsistent lower court rulings.
Thing v. La Chusa (1989): Establishing a Bright-Line Rule
The Court addressed the post-Dillon confusion in Thing v. La Chusa. In this case, a mother was nearby but did not see or hear her son being struck by a car; she was only told about it moments later. The Court, concerned that the flexible Dillon guidelines had become too expansive, established a new, mandatory “bright-line” rule.
To recover for NIED as a bystander, a plaintiff now must prove all three of the following requirements:
- They are closely related to the injury victim.
- They were present at the scene of the injury-producing event at the time it occurred and were then aware that it was causing injury to the victim.
- As a result, they suffered serious emotional distress, beyond that of a disinterested witness and which is not an abnormal response to the circumstances.
Thing dramatically narrowed the scope of bystander claims. It requires that the plaintiff personally and contemporaneously perceive the accident and its injurious results.
Burgess v. Superior Court (1992): The “Direct Victim” Distinction
Just a few years later, the Court clarified another crucial aspect of emotional distress claims in Burgess v. Superior Court. This case involved a mother who suffered severe emotional distress due to injuries her child sustained during a negligent delivery. The defendants argued that because the mother did not see the negligent act, her claim was barred by the Thing requirements.
The Supreme Court disagreed, creating a vital distinction. It held that the Thing requirements apply only to bystanders. A mother in a medical malpractice case like this is a “direct victim,” not a bystander. The doctor owed a direct duty of care to both the baby and the mother. Therefore, when the doctor’s negligence caused injury to the child, it was also a direct breach of the duty owed to the mother, making her emotional distress a direct, not a derivative, injury.
This means that in cases involving a pre-existing relationship where a duty of care is owed to the plaintiff (like a doctor-patient relationship), the strict bystander requirements of Thing do not apply. This is a critical distinction in medical malpractice, wrongful death, and other cases involving a special relationship.
Understanding this legal trilogy is essential for properly pleading and proving a claim for emotional distress in any catastrophic personal injury case.
Contact Manoukian Law for a free and confidential consultation to discuss the complex nuances of your case.
