David is standing on a sidewalk about 50 feet from an intersection when he sees a delivery truck negligently strike a pedestrian, causing the pedestrian severe bodily injuries. David himself is never in danger of being hit, but he clearly sees the collision and immediately suffers serious emotional distress that later manifests in physical symptoms. David has never met the pedestrian and has no familial or other close relationship with her.
If David brings a negligence action against the truck driver seeking damages for his emotional distress, how is a court applying the modern majority (bystander) rule most likely to decide?
Yes, because David's emotional distress produced documented physical symptoms.
No, because negligent infliction of emotional distress is never recognized unless the plaintiff also suffers a physical impact.
Yes, because David personally and contemporaneously observed the accident.
No, because David was not closely related to the injured pedestrian.
Under the modern majority approach to bystander negligent infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff who is outside the zone of physical danger may recover only if (1) the plaintiff is a close family member of the person physically injured, (2) the plaintiff was present and perceived the event, and (3) the plaintiff suffers serious emotional harm. Because David has no close familial relationship with the pedestrian, he fails the first requirement. His contemporaneous perception and severe distress are insufficient by themselves, so recovery will be denied.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is the bystander liability doctrine?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Are there exceptions to the requirement of a close relationship in emotional distress claims?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are common defenses against emotional distress claims?