Marzolf v. Stone

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc · 1998 · Torts

TortsNegligent infliction of emotional distressBystander liabilityNIEDbystander recoveryfamily memberscene of accidentshortly after

Facts

In Hegel, family members came upon Dale Hegel minutes after he had been struck by a passing car while refueling, and saw him lying in a ditch severely injured and bleeding. They sued the driver for negligent infliction of emotional distress based on the trauma of seeing his condition. In Marzolf, Barton Marzolf arrived within about 10 minutes after his son's motorcycle collided with a school bus, before emergency crews arrived, and saw his son conscious but catastrophically injured before he died. His emotional distress claim was dismissed because he did not witness the collision itself.

Issue

Must a bystander plaintiff actually witness the injury-causing event to recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress, or is it enough to arrive shortly afterward and observe the injured relative before substantial change in condition or location? Also, must objective symptomology consist of physical manifestations, or may medically diagnosable emotional disorders suffice?

Rule

A family member may recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress caused by observing an injured relative at the scene of an accident after its occurrence and before there is substantial change in the relative's condition or location. The plaintiff's emotional distress must be reasonable under the circumstances and supported by objective symptomology that is susceptible to medical diagnosis and proved through medical evidence; physical manifestations are not required.

🔒

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 Tacoma, Lena Ortiz was at work when her adult daughter, Maya, was struck by a delivery van while crossing a street. Lena reached the intersection about seven minutes later and saw Maya still lying on the pavement, bleeding and crying out, before paramedics moved her. Lena later developed posttraumatic stress disorder documented by her psychiatrist.

Under the governing rule, is Lena's negligent infliction of emotional distress claim most likely viable?

Explanation. The majority rejected a strict eyewitness-at-impact requirement. A family member who arrives shortly after the accident and observes the injured relative at the scene before substantial change in condition or location may state a bystander NIED claim. The distress must also be reasonable and supported by objective symptomology susceptible to medical diagnosis and proved by medical evidence. Lena satisfies those elements on these facts.