Barnes v. Geiger

Massachusetts Appeals Court · Torts

TortsNegligent infliction of emotional distressRescue doctrineforeseeabilitymental distressphysical injurymistaken identitybystander recovery

Facts

Mrs. Barnes saw a car strike a pedestrian near the area where her children had gone ice skating and believed the victim was her son. She ran to the scene to rescue the injured person, but the victim was actually an unrelated fifteen-year-old boy. The next day Mrs. Barnes died of a cerebral vascular hemorrhage allegedly triggered by elevated blood pressure caused by witnessing and going to the scene of the accident. Geiger was the driver of the car that struck the boy.

Issue

May a person who mistakenly believes that the victim of an accident is her child recover for physical injury induced by mental distress from what she saw? May such a person recover under the rescue doctrine when she ran to the scene but did not actually intervene or undertake a specific act of assistance?

Rule

Psychic trauma and resulting physical injury to a person who mistakenly believes a close family member is the victim of an observed accident are beyond the reasonably foreseeable and are not actionable under the bystander emotional-distress cases. The rescue doctrine applies only where the claimant undertakes some specific mission of assistance by which the plight of the imperiled person could reasonably be thought to be ameliorated; a merely investigatory purpose or running to the scene on the chance of helping is insufficient.

🔒

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.

From her apartment in Worcester, Dana Mello saw a delivery van strike a bicyclist near the entrance to a park where her teenage daughter had gone jogging. Believing the bicyclist was her daughter, Dana sprinted toward the intersection and later suffered a heart arrhythmia allegedly caused by the shock. The injured bicyclist was actually an unrelated college student.

If Dana sues the van driver for her physical injury induced by emotional distress, which is the strongest argument for the driver?

Explanation. The majority limited bystander recovery by holding that psychic trauma and resulting physical injury are not actionable when they stem from the plaintiff's mistaken belief that a close family member was the victim. The court rejected extending foreseeability that far, even where the mistake is understandable. It also stated that presence in the zone of danger is not essential, so that is not the controlling defense. (Derived from Barnes v. Geiger (n.d.).)