Boucher v. Dixie Medical Center

Supreme Court of Utah · 1992 · Torts

Tortsnegligent infliction of emotional distressloss of consortiumzone of dangerRestatement (Second) of Torts § 313bystander emotional distressdirect victim approach rejectedDillon rejected

Facts

Daniel Boucher, the eighteen-year-old son of James and Torla Boucher, was admitted to Dixie Medical Center with a severely injured right hand. After surgery, he lapsed into a coma and awoke ten days later as a severely brain-damaged quadriplegic requiring extensive lifelong care. His parents were present at the hospital and observed his condition before and after he awoke. They sued individually for emotional distress from witnessing his condition and for loss of his society and affection.

Issue

Whether parents who were not themselves in the zone of danger may recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress based on observing their adult son's injuries, and whether Utah should recognize a cause of action allowing parents to recover for loss of consortium when their adult child suffers nonfatal tortious injuries.

Rule

In Utah, negligent infliction of emotional distress follows the zone-of-danger rule: a plaintiff who suffers no physical impact may recover only if the defendant's negligence placed the plaintiff in actual physical peril and the plaintiff feared for his or her own safety; plaintiffs outside the zone of danger cannot recover for emotional distress caused by witnessing injury to another. Utah does not judicially recognize a parental cause of action for loss of an adult child's consortium arising from the child's nonfatal injuries.

🔒

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 Ogden, a delivery van owned by Wasatch Parcel Services jumped a curb because of negligent maintenance and sped toward a sidewalk café. Elena Cruz leapt behind a concrete planter to avoid being struck and, moments later, saw the van hit her adult brother, who survived with catastrophic injuries.

Under Utah law as stated by the majority opinion, which is the strongest argument that Elena has stated a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress?

Explanation. Utah follows the zone-of-danger rule. A plaintiff without physical impact may recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress only if the defendant's negligence placed the plaintiff in actual physical peril and the plaintiff feared for her own safety. The majority rejected broader bystander and direct-victim theories for plaintiffs outside the zone of danger.