NIED (Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

Question 1

CA Bystander NIED

Answer 1

To recover under California’s bystander theory of negligent infliction of emotional distress a plaintiff must prove that they are

(1) closely related to the injury victim, and

(2) 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 V and,

(3) as a result suffers emotional distress beyond that which would be anticipated in a disinterested witness.

Question 2

Closely Related

Answer 2

Closely related refers to spouses, family members that live together in the same household or parents, children, siblings, and grandparents unless exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated.

Question 3

Present at the scene

Answer 3

In California, courts have gradually expanded the concept of “presence” in some circumstances, treating virtual presence as similar to physical presence when real-time observation occurs.

Question 4

Contemporaneous sensory awareness

Answer 4

Contemporaneous means occurring in real time and sensory awareness refers to sensory perception through one of the five senses such as sight, smell, or hearing. Sensory perception does not necessarily require perception by sight.

In Downey v. City of Riverside, the California Supreme Court clarified that for bystander NIED claims “contemporaneous sensory awareness” requires the bystander to directly perceive the injury-causing event and understand it as injuring a close relative in real time, but it does not require them to understand the defendant’s role in causing that injury at the moment it occurs.

Question 5

Serious emotional distress

Answer 5

Courts consider serious emotional distress to mean distress beyond what is expected from witnessing a disturbing event or beyond the reaction expected from a disinterested bystander.

Question 6

Thing v. La Chusa

Question 7

Downey v. City of Riverside

Question 8

Amaya

Answer 8

Facts: A mother witnessed her child being struck by a truck but was not in any immediate physical danger herself.

Rule: Bystanders outside the “zone of danger” cannot claim damages for emotional distress.

Policy: The court expressed concerns about unlimited liability if emotional distress claims were allowed for all bystanders.

Question 9

Dillon 1968

Answer 9

eliminates “Zone of danger”

Question 10

Thing 1989
Thing v. La Chusa

Answer 10

Elements not facts

Question 11

Ko 2020
Ko v. Maxim

Answer 11

Virtual presence

Question 12

Ochoa 1985

Answer 12

“sudden occurrence”

Question 13

Bird 2002

Answer 13

medical malpractice

Question 14

Downey 2024

Answer 14

contemporaneous sensory awareness