California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Martinez v. County of Los Angeles, 186 Cal.App.3d 884, 231 Cal.Rptr. 96 (Cal. App. 1986):
"The tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress is a variation of the tort of negligence. The traditional elements of duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages apply. [p] Whether a defendant owes a duty of care is a question of law. Its existence depends upon the foreseeability of the risk and upon a weighing of policy considerations for and against imposition of liability." (Slaughter v. Legal Process & Courier Service (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 1236, 1249, 209 Cal.Rptr. 189.) Dillon v. Legg (1968) 68 Cal.2d 728, 69 Cal.Rptr. 72, 441 P.2d 912, first recognized a cause of action for emotional distress to a parent caused by witnessing the tortious death of or injury to his/her child. In doing so, the court rejected the rule [186 Cal.App.3d 889] that required the plaintiff be fearful for his or her own personal safety in order to recover. "Since the chief element in determining whether defendant owes a duty or an obligation to plaintiff is the foreseeability of the risk, that factor will be of prime concern in every case. Because it is inherently intertwined with foreseeability such duty or obligation must necessarily be adjudicated only on a case-by-case basis." (Dillon v. Legg, supra, 68 Cal.2d 728, 740, 69 Cal.Rptr. 72, 441 P.2d 912; accord,
Page 100
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.