Thing v. La Chusa

Supreme Court of California · 1989 · Torts

TortsNIEDbystander recoverythree-part testemotional distressNIEDbystander emotional distressclose relation

Facts

The plaintiff was the mother of an injured child and sought damages for emotional distress caused by the defendant's alleged negligence toward her son. The dispute centered on whether she could recover as a bystander even though the majority framed recovery as depending on her presence at the scene when the injury-producing event occurred and her awareness that it was causing injury. The opinion indicates the mother perceived the consequences of the accident involving her son, but the legal controversy was whether that was enough. The case therefore focused on the boundary of bystander emotional-distress liability.

Issue

When may a plaintiff recover damages for emotional distress caused by observing the negligently inflicted injury of a third person? Specifically, must the plaintiff be closely related to the victim, present at the scene of the injury-producing event when it occurs, and then aware that it is causing injury?

Rule

A plaintiff may recover damages for emotional distress caused by observing the negligently inflicted injury of a third person if, but only if, the plaintiff (1) is closely related to the injury victim, (2) is present at the scene of the injury-producing event at the time it occurs and is then aware that it is causing injury to the victim, and (3) as a result suffers serious emotional distress beyond that which would be anticipated in a disinterested witness and which is not an abnormal response to the circumstances.

🔒

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 Sacramento, Elena Ruiz was shopping inside a pharmacy when she heard tires screech outside. She ran out 20 seconds later and saw her teenage son Mateo pinned beneath a delivery van, bleeding and crying, but she had not seen the impact itself. She later developed severe emotional distress.

Under the governing rule for bystander negligent infliction of emotional distress, may Elena recover from the van driver?

Explanation. Recovery is permitted only if the plaintiff is closely related to the victim, is present at the scene of the injury-producing event at the time it occurs and then aware it is causing injury, and suffers serious emotional distress. Elena satisfies close relationship and likely seriousness, but she did not witness the injury-producing event as it happened. Perception of the aftermath, even seconds later, does not satisfy the majority’s strict presence-and-awareness requirement.