Factual and Procedural Background
Jayde Downey was giving her daughter, Malyah Jane Vance, driving directions on her cell phone while Vance was driving. Vance was driving near the intersection of Via Zapata and Canyon Crest Drive at the time. While giving her instructions, Downey heard Vance exclaim “Oh!” followed by the sounds of breaking glass and crunching metal, so she immediately knew her daughter had been involved in a car crash. Since Vance did not respond any further, Downey knew that she had likely suffered severe injuries in the crash that prevented her from talking. A passerby picked up the phone and told Downey to stop talking because he needed to try to find her daughter’s pulse.
Following the crash, Downey and Vance filed a lawsuit against the other driver, the City of Riverside, and the people who owned the property next to the crash site named the Sevacherians. They alleged the City of Riverside was negligent in how it maintained the road and intersection because of inadequate markings. They argued the Sevecherians were negligent for failing to cut down vegetation that blocked Vance’s ability to see cars turning from Via Zapata onto Canyon Crest Drive. The lawsuit included a cause of action for the negligent infliction of emotional distress on Downey for hearing the sounds of the crash and knowing her daughter had suffered serious injuries.
The City of Riverside and the Sevecherians filed demurrers to the negligent infliction of emotional distress cause of action. They argued that since Downey wasn’t present, she could not have been aware that either party was allegedly negligent and contributed to the crash. Downey argued that it didn’t matter if she didn’t know at that moment that the city and the neighboring property owners were negligent but instead that she aurally witnessed the sounds of the collision and had knowledge of her daughter’s serious injuries.
The trial court sustained the demurrer and ordered Downey’s claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress dismissed without leave for her to amend. She filed an appeal, and a majority of the justices on the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court, holding that Downey could not claim negligent infliction of emotional distress because she lacked awareness of the defendants’ negligence at the time she heard the crash. Downey filed a writ of certiorari to the California Supreme Court, which granted certiorari to hear the case.
Issue: Did the lower courts err in holding that negligent infliction of emotional distress requires claimants to have immediate awareness of the negligent actions the defendants engaged in that caused their loved one’s injuries?
The California Supreme Court granted certiorari to clarify whether the negligent infliction of emotional distress cause of action requires the traumatized individual to have immediate awareness of the types of negligence the defendant committed to contribute to the accident that injured their loved one. The defendants argued that since Downey only heard the sounds of the crash on her phone, she had no awareness that the defendants’ alleged negligence had caused the crash and thus couldn’t pursue a claim against them for the negligent infliction of emotional distress. Downey argued that having immediate knowledge of their negligence was not required to support her claim. Instead, she argued the tort only required her to witness the incident that injured her daughter and suffered trauma without requiring her to be a visual witness.
Rule: A person who witnesses an accident that seriously injures a close loved one and subsequently suffers trauma can pursue a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress.
In California, people who witness an accident that causes their loved one to be seriously injured can pursue claims for the negligent infliction of emotional distress against those who caused the accident and injuries. This tort requires the person to witness what happened and suffer emotional trauma because of it. Previously, courts had been unclear whether the tort required the plaintiff to also have witnessed the tortfeasor’s negligence before they could file a claim. The California Supreme Court accepted certiorari to clarify what the tort requires.
Analysis
The Court of Appeal majority relied on the California Supreme Court’s decision in Bird v. Saenz, 28 Cal.4th 910 (2002) in affirming the trial court’s decision to dismiss the negligent infliction of emotional distress cause of action, reasoning that since Downey did not witness the event that caused her daughter’s injuries, she didn’t have grounds to file a claim. In Bird, the plaintiff’s mother had suffered a transection to an artery while undergoing cancer surgery, which was not immediately diagnosed and treated. In that case, the plaintiff only witnessed the aftermath of the doctors’ medical negligence instead of the event, so the California Supreme Court declined to impose liability.
The Supreme Court pointed out that the circumstances in Bird were different because the plaintiff only witnessed the results of the incident and not the incident itself. In Downey’s case, however, she witnessed the accident aurally while on the telephone.
Previously, the court did not impose liability for the negligent infliction of emotional distress unless the plaintiff was also in the zone of danger at the accident scene and suffered other injuries. However, the court overturned its previous decision in Dillon v. Legg, 68 Cal.2d 728 (1968), when it allowed the mother of a child who witnessed her daughter’s fatal accident to recover for the negligent infliction of emotional distress even though she was not injured or in the zone of danger at the time of the accident.
Since Dillon, plaintiffs in California have been allowed to pursue claims for the negligent infliction of emotional distress without suffering physical injuries or being in the zone of danger. Dillon still required a contemporaneous observation, however.
The court had previously established three requirements for a negligent infliction of emotional distress cause of action, including:
-
- The plaintiff must be closely related to the victim.
-
- The plaintiff is present at the event and witnesses that their loved one was injured by it.
-
- The plaintiff suffers emotional distress beyond what a disinterested bystander would suffer after witnessing the incident.
The California Supreme Court concentrated on the second requirement of contemporaneous presence and witnessing the event. The court said that the question involves whether the person witnessed the event while present and the negligent conduct that caused their loved one’s injuries. The court stated that there is no requirement that the plaintiff must understand the negligent actions that contributed to the accident to have a valid claim for the negligent infliction of emotional distress. The court also found that Downey’s presence on the phone when the accident occurred was enough to establish contemporary presence and observation of the accident.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Consult an Experienced Los Angeles Injury Lawyer
If you witnessed an accident in which your loved one was seriously injured and have developed emotional trauma because of it, you should speak with an experienced Los Angeles injury attorney at the law firm of Steven M. Sweat, Personal Injury Lawyers, APC. We offer free consultations and can help you understand the merits of your claim and the legal options that might be available. Call us today to schedule your free case evaluation at (866) 966-5240.