Amaya v. Home Ice, Fuel & Supply Co.

Supreme Court of California · Torts

TortsNegligenceEmotional distressDutynegligent infliction of emotional distressdutythird-person injuryzone of danger

Facts

Plaintiff alleged that while seven months pregnant she was standing near her 17-month-old son and watching over him when she saw defendants' truck negligently bearing down on him. She shouted a warning, but defendants did not stop and ran over the child, forcing plaintiff to watch helplessly. Plaintiff alleged that as a direct and proximate result she suffered emotional shock, great mental disturbance, nausea, bodily injury, and injury to her nervous system. She expressly limited her claim to fright and shock caused solely by fear for her child's safety and not by fear for her own safety.

Issue

May a plaintiff recover in negligence for fright or nervous shock, with resulting bodily illness, when that shock was induced solely by apprehension of negligently caused danger or injury to a third person rather than fear for the plaintiff's own safety? Also, is the absence of contemporaneous physical impact on the plaintiff independently fatal to such a claim?

Rule

California does not require contemporaneous physical impact to state a claim for bodily illness resulting from negligently induced fright or shock. But no cause of action lies where the plaintiff's fright or shock, and resulting bodily illness, are induced solely by apprehension of danger or injury to a third person, unless the defendant's negligence otherwise created an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to the plaintiff; duty in such cases is a question of law for the court and is determined by policy, not foreseeability alone.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Sacramento, Nora Velasquez was standing on a porch when she saw a delivery van negligently jump the curb and strike her brother, who was walking below. Nora was never in the van's path and later developed severe gastrointestinal illness caused by the shock of fearing for her brother's safety.

Under the governing rule, is Nora most likely entitled to recover from the driver for her bodily illness?

Explanation. The majority rule rejects the impact requirement, so lack of contact is not independently fatal. But it also holds there is no negligence liability when the plaintiff's fright or shock, with resulting bodily illness, is induced solely by apprehension of danger or injury to a third person, unless the defendant's negligence otherwise created an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to the plaintiff. Nora feared only for her brother and was not herself threatened, so no duty is recognized.