Archibald v. Braverman | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Court | California Court of Appeals |
Full case name | Joan Archibald, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Edward Braverman et al., Defendants and Respondents. |
Decided | July 28, 1969 |
Citation | 275 Cal. App. 2d 253 |
Case history | |
Subsequent action | Overruled in Thing v. La Chusa |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Frank Henry Kerrigan, Stephen K. Tamura, Robert Gardner [a] |
Case opinions | |
Decision by | Kerrigan |
Concurrence | Tamura, Gardner |
Archibald v. Braverman, 275 Cal. App. 2d 253 (1969), 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 . The holding in Archibald was later overruled by the 1989 case Thing v. La Chusa . [1] [2] [3]