Jarrett v. Jones

Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc · 2008 · Torts

TortsNegligenceEmotional Distressnegligent infliction of emotional distressdirect victimbystanderzone of dangerBass v. Nooney

Facts

During heavy but lessening rain, Michael Jones lost control of his westbound car, crossed the median, and collided with Tommy Jarrett's eastbound tractor-trailer. Jarrett suffered minor physical injuries in the collision, then immediately left his truck and went to check on Jones's vehicle, where he saw Jones, Jones's wife, and the body of Jones's two-year-old daughter, who had been killed in the crash. Jarrett later alleged mental and emotional injuries, including post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, trauma, anguish, and stress, and his wife alleged loss of consortium. The Jarretts alleged Jones negligently drove too fast for wet road conditions and otherwise caused the collision.

Issue

When a plaintiff is directly involved in an automobile accident caused by the defendant's negligence and suffers emotional distress after seeing the death of another person involved in that same accident, is the plaintiff a direct victim governed by Bass or a bystander subject to Asaro's zone-of-danger limitations? Also, did the Jarretts present facts sufficient to survive summary judgment on a direct-victim emotional-distress claim?

Rule

A plaintiff directly involved in an accident caused by the defendant's negligence is a direct victim, not a bystander, even when part of the plaintiff's emotional distress arises from observing the injury or death of another person involved in the same accident. For a direct-victim negligence claim seeking emotional-distress damages, the plaintiff must prove the ordinary negligence elements plus the Bass elements: the defendant should have realized that his conduct involved an unreasonable risk of causing the distress, and the emotional distress must be medically diagnosable and sufficiently severe to be medically significant.

🔒

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.

On Interstate 70 near Columbia, Missouri, Lena Ortiz was driving a delivery van when Devon Pike negligently hydroplaned across the center line and struck her van head-on. Lena suffered bruised ribs, got out moments later, and saw that Devon's passenger had been fatally injured; she later developed medically diagnosed PTSD tied to the entire crash episode.

If Lena sues Devon for negligence and emotional-distress damages, which is the best characterization of her claim?

Explanation. A plaintiff directly involved in the same accident is a direct victim, not a bystander, even when part of the emotional distress arises from seeing injury or death to another person in that accident. The majority held that getting out of one's vehicle and then observing the aftermath does not transform a direct participant into a bystander. A direct victim's distress is not limited to fear for personal safety; it includes foreseeable psychological consequences of the traumatic event as a whole. (Derived from Jarrett v. Jones (n.d.).)