Dillon v. Legg

Supreme Court of California · 1968 · Torts

Tortsdutybystander recoveryNIEDzone of dangernegligencedutyforeseeability

Facts

The plaintiffs were a mother and sister who sought recovery after emotional shock resulting from apprehension of danger or injury to Erin, a third person closely related to them. The majority treated the case as involving a mother and sibling who were present at or near the scene when Erin was injured by the defendant's negligence. Their claimed harm was physical impairment resulting from emotional distress caused by witnessing or contemporaneously perceiving Erin's injury, rather than fear for their own safety. The case specifically raised whether recovery is barred merely because the plaintiffs were outside the zone of physical danger.

Issue

Whether a defendant owes a duty of care to a plaintiff who suffers physical injury from emotional shock caused by contemporaneously witnessing negligent injury to a close relative, even though the plaintiff was outside the zone of danger. More specifically, the question was whether California should continue the categorical rule of nonliability stated in Amaya.

Rule

A plaintiff's cause of action for emotional shock and resulting physical injury from witnessing negligently inflicted injury to another is not barred solely because the plaintiff was outside the zone of danger. Duty is determined by reasonable foreseeability, and relevant factors in assessing foreseeability include whether the plaintiff was near the scene of the accident, whether the shock resulted from direct emotional impact from sensory and contemporaneous observance of the accident rather than from learning of it later, and whether the plaintiff and the victim were closely related.

🔒

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 Fresno, Nolan Price sped through a red light and struck 8-year-old Ava Moreno in a crosswalk. Ava's mother, Elena Moreno, was standing safely on the sidewalk several feet away, saw the impact as it happened, and soon suffered severe shock followed by a diagnosed physical collapse.

If Elena sues Nolan for negligence, which is the strongest argument that Nolan owed her a duty?

Explanation. The majority rejected a categorical zone-of-danger limitation. Duty turns on reasonable foreseeability, and the opinion identified three important guidelines: nearness to the scene, direct emotional impact from sensory and contemporaneous observance, and a close relationship to the victim. Elena fits those factors even though she was never herself endangered.