Thing v. La Chusa, 48 Cal. 3d 644

Case citation

Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...

 (1989), was a case

Legal case

A legal case is a dispute between opposing parties resolved by a court, or by some equivalent legal process. A legal case may be either civil or criminal...

 decided by the Supreme Court of California

Supreme Court of California

The Supreme Court of California is the highest state court in California. It is headquartered in San Francisco and regularly holds sessions in Los Angeles and Sacramento. Its decisions are binding on all other California state courts.-Composition:...

 that limited the scope of the tort

Tort

A tort, in common law jurisdictions, is a wrong that involves a breach of a civil duty owed to someone else. It is differentiated from a crime, which involves a breach of a duty owed to society in general...

 of negligent infliction of emotional distress

Negligent infliction of emotional distress

The tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress is a controversial cause of action, which is available in nearly all U.S. states but is severely constrained and limited in the majority of them. The underlying concept is that one has a legal duty to use reasonable care to avoid causing...

. The majority opinion

Majority opinion

In law, a majority opinion is a judicial opinion agreed to by more than half of the members of a court. A majority opinion sets forth the decision of the court and an explanation of the rationale behind the court's decision....

 was authored by Associate Justice David Eagleson

David Eagleson

David N. Eagleson served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of California from 1987 to 1991. He practiced law in Long Beach, California for 20 years...

, and it is regarded as his single most famous opinion and representative of his conservative judicial philosophy.

Factual background

John Thing, a minor and son of plaintiff Maria Thing, was injured when he was struck by a car driven by James La Chusa. The plaintiff was close by, but did not see or hear the accident. The plaintiff's daughter informed her of the accident, and when the plaintiff arrived on the scene she saw her bloody and unconscious son and suffered emotional distress as a result. The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment

Summary judgment

In law, a summary judgment is a determination made by a court without a full trial. Such a judgment may be issued as to the merits of an entire case, or of specific issues in that case....

 and the plaintiff appealed.

Majority opinion

In an effort to limit a potential runaway tort and to avoid the burdensome case by case analysis warned of in Dillon v. Legg

Dillon v. Legg

Dillon v. Legg, 68 Cal. 2d 728 , was a case decided by the Supreme Court of California that established the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress...

, the court refined the necessary elements of a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress first enunciated in Dillon:

• The plaintiff must be closely related to the injury victim,
• The plaintiff must be present at the scene at the time of the injury, and must be aware that the victim is being injured, and
• The plainitff must suffer emotional distress as a result

Based on the strict formulation of the second element, the court ruled that the plaintiff could not recover because she was not present at the scene and not aware of the injury at the time of the accident.

Kaufman's concurrence

Justice Kaufman's concurrence criticized both the rigid rules of the majority opinion and the flexible guidelines advocated by Justice Broussard's dissent. Kaufman bemoaned the guidelines of Dillon v. Legg as hopelessly arbitrary, and advocated a return to the zone of danger rule as enunciated in Amaya v. Home Ice, Fuel & Supply Co.

Mosk's dissent

Justice Mosk's dissent voiced substantial agreement with Broussard's dissent, but also made a point of criticizing the majority's perspective on precedent. Mosk noted that a long list of California cases, including Archibald v. Braverman

Archibald v. Braverman

Archibald v. Braverman, 275 Cal. App. 2d 253 , was a case decided by the California Court of Appeals that first ruled that visual perception of an accident was not a necessary prerequisite to recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress under the criteria enunciated in Dillon v. Legg. ...

, Krouse v. Graham

Krouse v. Graham

Krouse v. Graham, 19 Cal.3d 59 , was a case decided by the Supreme Court of California ruling that a lack of visual perception of an accident did not necessarily preclude recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress.-Factual background:...

, Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals

Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals

Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, 27 Cal. 3d 916 , was a case decided by the Supreme Court of California that first recognized that a "direct victim" of negligence can recover damages for emotional distress without an accompanying physical injury....

, and State Rubbish Association v. Siliznoff evidenced an enduring theme of expanding tort liability for emotional distress.

Broussard's dissent

Justice Broussard's dissent criticized the rigid rules imposed by the majority decision as arbitrary and something that inevitably lead to undercompensation for real emotional distress injuries. Instead of bright line rules, Broussard advocated that liability be determined by an application of the well developed tort principles of foreseeability and duty

Duty of care

In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation imposed on an individual requiring that they adhere to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others. It is the first element that must be established to proceed with an action in negligence. The claimant...

.

External links

• Text of opinion from Google Scholar