Thing v. La Chusa Case Brief: Criteria for Bystander Recovery of Emotional Distress

Thing v. La Chusa, 48 Cal. 3d 644 (1989)

Court: Supreme Court of California
Year: 1989

Facts: In this case, Thing (plaintiff) sought damages for emotional distress after her son was struck by a car driven by La Chusa (defendant). Thing did not witness the accident but arrived at the scene shortly after and saw her injured child. She claimed severe emotional distress as a result of witnessing her son’s injuries.

Issue: Can a plaintiff recover damages for emotional distress caused by witnessing the injury of a close relative, even if the plaintiff did not contemporaneously observe the event causing the injury?

Holding: No, a plaintiff cannot recover damages for emotional distress caused by witnessing the injury of a close relative unless the plaintiff is present at the scene of the injury-producing event at the time it occurs and is then aware that it is causing injury to the victim.

Reasoning: The court established specific criteria for bystander recovery of damages for emotional distress:

1. The plaintiff must be closely related to the injury victim.
2. The plaintiff must be present at the scene of the injury-producing event at the time it occurs and must be aware that it is causing injury to the victim.
3. The plaintiff must suffer serious emotional distress—a reaction beyond which would be anticipated in a disinterested witness and which is not an abnormal response to the circumstances.

The court held that Thing did not meet these criteria because she did not witness the accident as it happened. Arriving after the fact and seeing the aftermath did not satisfy the requirement of contemporaneous awareness of the event causing injury.

Ruling: The court ruled in favor of La Chusa, finding that Thing was not entitled to recover damages for emotional distress because she did not meet the established criteria for bystander recovery.

Similar Cases:

1. Dillon v. Legg, 68 Cal. 2d 728 (1968): In this landmark case, the California Supreme Court allowed recovery for emotional distress to a mother who witnessed her child being struck by a car. The court introduced a foreseeability standard, considering factors like proximity to the scene, direct emotional impact from sensory and contemporaneous observance of the accident, and the closeness of the relationship to the victim.

2. Elden v. Sheldon, 46 Cal. 3d 267 (1988): The court denied recovery for emotional distress to a non-marital partner who witnessed the injury of his partner in a car accident, emphasizing the necessity of a legally recognized relationship for bystander recovery claims.

3. Ochoa v. Superior Court, 39 Cal. 3d 159 (1985): Here, the court allowed recovery for a mother who witnessed her son's suffering and deterioration due to inadequate medical care in a juvenile detention facility. The mother observed the events as they happened, satisfying the contemporaneous awareness requirement.

Cases Cited in Thing v. La Chusa:

1. Justus v. Atchison, 19 Cal. 3d 564 (1977): This case involved a father's claim for emotional distress after witnessing the stillbirth of his child due to alleged medical negligence. The court denied recovery, stating that emotional distress claims require the plaintiff to be present at the time of the negligent act.

2. Krouse v. Graham, 19 Cal. 3d 59 (1977): In this case, the court allowed a plaintiff to recover for emotional distress after witnessing his wife being struck by a car. The court emphasized the importance of sensory and contemporaneous observance of the injury-producing event.