Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
Email this article to a friend
Note: Reader discretion advised. Violent acts discussed herein.
We all know if someone harms us by being careless, we can sue that person for our injuries. But, if someone carelessly harms our loved ones, causing us emotional distress for having to see our loved ones in pain, can we also sue that person for the emotional distress we feel when we see our loved ones in pain?
The answer is, as with most questions in law: “It depends.” This article will explain when you can sue for emotional distress from seeing your loved ones in pain as a result of another person’s wrongful acts in California, which type of action is called “negligent infliction of emotional distress,” or “N.I.E.D.” for short.
Note: The advice provided here is for general education only. If you think you might be involved in an actual lawsuit, you should meet with a good local lawyer who specializes in your type of case because the laws are different in different states. Also, every lawsuit is different, so each one must be handled differently depending on the facts.
DILLON v. LEGG
The Facts
On September 27, 1964, a driver carelessly hit an infant girl, Erin Lee Dillon, who was legally crossing a street in Sacramento, California. Her infant sister, Cheryl Dillon, was nearby and could have been hit by the same driver, but she was not. She did, however, see the whole thing happen right in front of her. These two girls’ mother, Margery M. Dillon, was also nearby and also saw the whole thing happen. But, Margery was not close enough to be hit by the driver.
Erin died as a result of the accident. Margery sued the driver for, not only the wrongful death of Erin, but also for the “negligent infliction of emotional distress” or “N.I.E.D.” of Cheryl and herself for carelessly causing them to witness the harm done to Erin, resulting in emotional distress so severe that they eventually suffered actual physical injuries from it, as well.
The Decision
In 1968, the California Supreme Court, decided Dillon v. Legg as follows:
1. Person Who Caused the Harm Must Be 100% at Fault. The California Supreme Court noted that the driver claimed he was not 100% at fault for hitting Erin and blamed the infant child, her sister, and her mother for partially causing the accident. The court ruled that if in fact the driver was not 100% at fault for the accident, then neither the mother nor the sister could sue him for N.I.E.D.
2. Person Claiming N.I.E.D. Must Have Suffered Shock Severe Enough to Cause Physical Injury. The Court required all N.I.E.D. claims in California to also claim physical harm resulted from severe emotional distress.
3. If the First Two Requirements Are Met, You Must Prove Three More Things to Win an N.I.E.D. Case. They are:
a. You were close to the scene of the accident instead of far away from it.
b. You saw the accident as it happened instead of learning about it afterwards.
c. You were closely related to the victim as opposed to distantly related.
CASES AFTER DILLON v. LEGG
California cases after Dillon v. Legg have further defined when you can succeed on an N.I.E.D. claim and when you cannot. Here are some examples:
1. On September 23, 1984, a San Francisco bus driver verbally abused and hit Gary Coon’s “exclusive life partner” and roommate Ervin in front of him. Coon sued the bus driver and the City for, among other things, N.I.E.D. The California Court of Appeal, in Coon v. Joseph, found that the “exclusive life partner” relationship did not satisfy the close relationship requirement of Dillon v. Leg in order to sue for N.I.E.D. In reaching that conclusion, the court noted that only parent-child relationships, grandparent-grandchild relationships, and common-law marriages in states that recognize such marriages have been found close enough to satisfy the close relationship requirement for N.I.E.D. in prior cases.
2. In 1980, the California Court of Appeal, in Drew v. Drake, found that a woman, who watched lover and roommate of three years die before her eyes immediately after a car accident, could not sue the negligent person who caused the accident for N.I.E.D. because they were not married.
3. In 1983, the California Court of Appeal, in Trapp v. Schuyler Construction, found that two minors, who watched their cousin drown in a swimming pool, could not sue the owner of the swimming pool for N.I.E.D. because even if they were as close as brothers to drowned cousin, they were not actually brothers, and the rule does not extend to cousins.
4. In 1983, the California Court of Appeal, in Kately v. Wilkinson, found that a mother and daughter, who watched a child die as a result of a defective product, could not sue the manufacturer for N.I.E.D. because even if the child was as close as a natural member of the family, the child was not actually a family member, and the rule does not extend to non-family members.
5. In 1985, the California Court of Appeal, in Ledger v. Tippitt, made one small exception to the general rule established by all the other cases before it. A woman watched her lover get stabbed to death and held both him and their natural born son in her arms while her lover bled to death. The man and woman had lived together for two years and had tried to get married twice. However, their marriage license had never been recorded. That court reasoned, “[There is no] more fundamental family relationship than one which is created when two parents establish a home with their natural child.”
6. In 1980, the California Supreme Court, in Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, found that a man could sue for N.I.E.D. even though there was no direct physical injury to his wife when the hospital misdiagnosed her with syphilis causing her great emotional distress. The Court found that the law needed to be updated to recognize that sometimes purely emotional injuries can be just as severe and debilitating as physical injuries. When Mrs. Molien was told she had syphilis, she underwent medical treatment for it, including massive doses of penicillin. Then, she had to tell her husband about the diagnosis so he could get tested as the potential source for the disease. His test came back clean. However, she became suspicious that he must have had extramarital sex. Their marriage suffered, they began divorce proceedings, and the husband sought counseling to try to save the marriage. Under the circumstances, the Court found emotional distress alone could be severe enough to recover on a N.I.E.D. theory.
CONCLUSION
To recap, if you want to sue for observing a loved one harmed physically or emotionally as a result of someone’s careless behavior, you will need to prove: (1) that the loved one was a close family member (parent; child; sibling; grandparent; grandchild; spouse; or someone you tried to marry, lived with, and had a child with); (2) that it should have been foreseeable to a reasonable person that you would be emotionally harmed from observing your close family member harmed; and (3) that you suffered serious emotional injury from your observations.
Remember that when you are careless and harm someone, you might also be held responsible for the emotional distress that you cause that person’s close family members. Help keep everyone safe, including you and your family from unnecessary lawsuits, by taking the time to be careful wherever you go and whatever you do.
Know your rights. Learn the law. Protect yourself with the power of knowledge.
Be sure to get the latest articles as soon as they’re posted by signing up here!
[For “How to Think Like a Lawyer,” click here.]
[For “How to Read People,” click here.]
[For more “Easy Steps to Success with Law” articles, click here.]
