Blanyar v. Pagnotti Enterprises, Inc.
451 Pa. Super. 269, 679 A.2d 790, 1996 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2032 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In Pennsylvania, a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress for a bystander who witnesses injury to another is limited to plaintiffs who are members of the victim's immediate family. The relationship of first cousins is, as a matter of law, not sufficiently close to satisfy this requirement.
Facts:
- The minor plaintiff and his cousin, Derrick Hittinger, were of approximately the same age.
- The plaintiff and his cousin were described in the complaint as being 'very close friends.'
- The plaintiff was present on the Appellee's property with his cousin.
- The plaintiff witnessed his cousin drown on the Appellee's property.
Procedural Posture:
- The minor plaintiff's parents (Appellants) filed a complaint against the property owner (Appellee) in a Pennsylvania trial court for negligent infliction of emotional distress.
- Appellee filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, arguing that the relationship of cousins was not close enough to support the claim.
- The trial court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the Appellants' complaint.
- Appellants appealed the dismissal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, an intermediate appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the relationship of first cousins satisfy the 'closely related' element required to maintain a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress for a bystander who witnesses a traumatic event?
Opinions:
Majority - Hudock, J.
No. The relationship of first cousins does not satisfy the 'closely related' element for a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim. The court narrowly construes this element of the test from Sinn v. Burd to include only members of the victim's immediate family. This approach is consistent with other jurisdictions that have sought to create a clear, defined class of plaintiffs to prevent an unmanageable proliferation of claims and avoid the judicial difficulty of assessing the quality of more attenuated emotional ties. Public policy favors a bright-line rule that provides certainty, and any expansion of this tort to include relationships beyond the immediate family must come from the state's Supreme Court.
Dissenting - Del Sole, J.
Yes. A claim based on the relationship of first cousins should be allowed to proceed. The core of the bystander recovery test is foreseeability, and it is foreseeable that a child would suffer severe emotional harm from witnessing a cousin's traumatic death. The court should not decide as a matter of law that the relationship is insufficient. Instead, the question of whether the specific relationship between the cousins was close enough to support the claimed emotional distress and whether that harm was foreseeable should be a question of fact for the jury to decide.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a bright-line rule in Pennsylvania, restricting bystander recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress to a victim's 'immediate family.' By rejecting a case-by-case foreseeability analysis for the relationship element, the court prioritizes legal certainty and limits the potential for boundless litigation. The ruling significantly narrows the class of potential plaintiffs, foreclosing claims from individuals with close, but not immediate, familial relationships, such as cousins, aunts, or uncles, regardless of the actual emotional bond. This creates a clear legal standard but may be criticized for producing harsh results in cases involving genuinely strong, non-traditional familial bonds.
