| Venue: |
NJ SC
|
|
| Facts: |
A kid gets trapped between the outer door of an elevator and
the elevator shaft. The elevator drags him away. The
cops try for 4.5 hours to rescue the kid, who is badly
injured and in great pain. But he dies, and his mother
witnessed the whole thing. |
|
| Posture: |
Summary judgment for defendants at trial, because the Falzone
requirement of being subjected to some risk of harm was not met. |
|
| Issue: |
Can there be liability for psychological harm when the victim
was not personally exposed to any danger, but was merely
a parent witnessing the agonizing death of a child? |
|
| Holding: |
Yes, reversed. |
|
| Rule: |
Yes, if the following four elements are met:
- Death or serious physical injury of another caused by
the defendant's negligence
- Marital or intimate familial relationship between
plaintiff and injured person
- Observation of the death or injury at the scene of
the accident
- Severe emotional distress as a result
|
|
| Reasoning: |
We don't want to assign liability on the basis of mere conjecture
or speculation, so we're going to need to refine our basis of
judgment. Clearly, this poor plaintiff deserves more than
mere pity, but our current standards afford her nothing.
CA has a standard (Dillon) for liability that depends
on:
- Proximity to the scene of the accident
- Shock resulting from contemporaneous and sensory observance
of the accident
- Close relationship
This is pretty good, but we want to be more specific. First,
about the relationship-- let's say what kinds of relationships
give rise to the level of concern we're willing to compensate:
distant relatives are out. And second, about the kind of injury:
we don't want to compensate people who freak out about minor
injuries to those they love. |
|
| Dicta: |
We need to give juries guidance, lest they impose liability not
commensurate with culpability. |
|