AAPL Landmark - Civil Liability and Emotional Harm

Question 1

Does a person who suffers from emotional injury but was not exposed to actual physical injury have standing to sue for negligence?

Answer 1

Yes.

Dillon V. Legg (1968). A man hit a woman’s daughter with his car, and she witnessed death. The CA SC said physical proximity did not matter and used the standard of “reasonable foreseeability” to establish emotional injury.

Question 2

Is the “foreseeability” standard established by Dillon v. Legg too expansive?

Answer 2

Yes.

Thing v. La Chusa (1989). La Chusa hit Ms. Thing’s son, which she did not witness. The SC of CA set forth strict conditions necessary to recover for the negligent infliction of emotional distress, which had become too expansive and confusing. They changed the standard to a plaintiff being closely related to the injury victim and being present and aware of the “injury-producing event.”