Thing v. La Chusa

Last updated
Thing v. La Chusa
Seal of the Supreme Court of California.png
Decided April 27, 1989
Full case nameMaria E. Thing v. James V. La Chusa
Citation(s) 48 Cal.3d 644
771 P.2d 814
257 Cal.Rptr. 865
57 USLW 2671
Case history
Prior history233 Cal.Rptr. 911 (1987) (reversed)
Holding
A bystander can only recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress if they are closely related to the victim, are present and aware of the injury, and suffer emotional distress as a result.
Court membership
Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas
Associate Justices Allen Broussard, Edward A. Panelli, Stanley Mosk, David Eagleson, John Arguelles, Marcus Kaufman,
Case opinions
MajorityEagleson, joined by Lucas, Panelli, Arguelles
ConcurrenceKaufman
DissentMosk
DissentBroussard

Thing v. La Chusa, 48 Cal. 3d 644 (1989), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of California that limited the scope of the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress. The majority opinion was authored by Associate Justice David Eagleson, and it is regarded as his single most famous opinion and representative of his conservative judicial philosophy. [1]

Contents

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 and the plaintiff appealed.

Opinion of the Court

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 , the court refined the necessary elements of a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress first enunciated in Dillon into a bright-line rule: [2]

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. [3]

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. [4]

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 , Krouse v. Graham , Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals , and State Rubbish Association v. Siliznoff evidenced an enduring theme of expanding tort liability for emotional distress. [5]

Broussard's dissent

Justice Broussard's dissent criticized the rigid rules imposed by the majority decision as arbitrary and something that can inevitably lead to under-compensation for real emotional distress injuries. Instead of bright line rules, Broussard advocated that liability be determined by the application of well developed tort principles of foreseeability and duty. [6]

Related Research Articles

Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate and or ethical ruled care expected to be exercised amongst specified circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by failing to act as a form of carelessness possibly with extenuating circumstances. The core concept of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care in their actions, by taking account of the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause to other people or property.

A tort, in common law jurisdiction, is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits a tortious act. It can include the intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, financial losses, injuries, invasion of privacy, and many other things.

Supreme Court of California the highest court of the U.S. state of California

The Supreme Court of California is the highest and final court in the courts of the State of California. It resides inside the Earl Warren Building in San Francisco, overlooking Civic Center Square along with City Hall. It also holds sessions in Los Angeles and Sacramento. Its decisions are binding on all other California state courts.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress is a common law tort that allows individuals to recover for severe emotional distress caused by another individual who intentionally or recklessly inflicted emotional distress by behaving in an "extreme and outrageous" way. Some courts and commentators have substituted mental for emotional, but the tort is the same.

This article addresses torts in United States law. As such, it covers primarily common law. Moreover, it provides general rules, as individual states all have separate civil codes. There are three general categories of torts: intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability torts.

The tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) 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 emotional distress to another individual. If one fails in this duty and unreasonably causes emotional distress to another person, that actor will be liable for monetary damages to the injured individual. The tort is to be contrasted with intentional infliction of emotional distress in that there is no need to prove intent to inflict distress. That is, an accidental infliction, if negligent, is sufficient to support a cause of action.

David Eagleson American judge

David Newton Eagleson was an American lawyer who served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of California from 1987 to 1991.

In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation which is imposed on an individual requiring adherence 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 must be able to show a duty of care imposed by law which the defendant has breached. In turn, breaching a duty may subject an individual to liability. The duty of care may be imposed by operation of law between individuals who have no current direct relationship but eventually become related in some manner, as defined by common law.

Roger J. Traynor American judge

Roger John Traynor was the 23rd Chief Justice of California (1964-1970) and an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of California from 1940 to 1964. Previously, he also had served as a Deputy Attorney General of California under Earl Warren, and an Acting Dean and Professor of UC Berkeley School of Law. He is widely considered to be one of the most creative and influential judges as well as legal scholars of his time.

An intentional tort is a category of torts that describes a civil wrong resulting from an intentional act on the part of the tortfeasor. The term negligence, on the other hand, pertains to a tort that simply results from the failure of the tortfeasor to take sufficient care in fulfilling a duty owed, while strict liability torts refers to situations where a party is liable for injuries no matter what precautions were taken.

A dignitary tort is type of intentional tort where the cause of action is being subjected to certain kinds of indignities. Historically, this category of torts was often covered by the writ of trespass vi et armis.

Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories, 26 Cal. 3d 588 (1980), was a landmark products liability decision of the Supreme Court of California which pioneered the doctrine of market share liability.

Miller v. National Broadcasting Co.232 Cal. Rptr 668 (1986) is a US tort law case on negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Dillon v. Legg, 68 Cal. 2d 728 (1968), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of California that established the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress. To date, it is the most persuasive decision of the most persuasive state supreme court in the United States during the latter half of the 20th century: Dillon has been favorably cited and followed by at least twenty reported out-of-state appellate decisions, more than any other California appellate decision in the period from 1940 to 2005. It was also favorably cited by the House of Lords in an important case on nervous shock, McLoughlin v O'Brian [1983].

Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, 27 Cal. 3d 916 (1980), 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.

Krouse v. Graham, 19 Cal.3d 59 (1977), 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.

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.

Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court ruled that speech on a matter of public concern, on a public street, cannot be the basis of liability for a tort of emotional distress, even in the circumstances that the speech is viewed or interpreted as "offensive" or "outrageous".

Marshall Francis McComb was an American jurist who served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of California from January 1956 to May 2, 1977.

Rose Spector is a lawyer and judge based in Texas.

References

  1. ↑ The California Supreme Court Historical Society, Justices of the California Supreme Court. In Memoriam: The Honorable David N. Eagleson.
  2. ↑ Henderson, J.A. et al. The Torts Process, Seventh Edition. Aspen Publishers, New York, NY: 2007, pp. 310-311
  3. ↑ Henderson, et al. p. 312
  4. ↑ Thing v. La Chusa, 48 Cal.3d 644, 676 (1989)
  5. ↑ Thing, 48 Cal.3d at 677-80
  6. ↑ Thing, 48 Cal.3d at 680-88
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.