Boucher Ex Rel. Boucher v. Dixie Medical Center
850 P.2d 1179, 1992 Utah LEXIS 61, 194 Utah Adv. Rep. 3 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In Utah, a plaintiff may not recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress unless they were within the 'zone of danger' and feared for their own safety. Furthermore, Utah does not recognize a cause of action for parents to recover for the loss of filial consortium of a tortiously injured adult child.
Facts:
- Daniel Boucher, the eighteen-year-old son of James and Torla Boucher, was admitted into Dixie Medical Center with a severely injured right hand.
- He underwent surgery at the medical center.
- During the post-operative recovery period, Daniel Boucher lapsed into a coma.
- He remained in a coma for ten days.
- Upon awakening, Daniel Boucher was a severely brain-damaged quadriplegic.
- James and Torla Boucher were present at the hospital and observed their son's condition both before and after he awoke from the coma.
Procedural Posture:
- James and Torla Boucher sued Dixie Medical Center and others in the fifth district court of Utah (a state trial court).
- The complaint included individual claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress and loss of filial consortium.
- The defendants filed a motion to dismiss these claims pursuant to Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the Bouchers' individual claims.
- The trial court certified its ruling as a final decision, allowing for an immediate appeal.
- James and Torla Boucher, as appellants, appealed the dismissal to the Utah Supreme 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:
1. Does a plaintiff state a valid claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress under Utah law when they were not within the zone of danger created by the defendant's negligence? 2. Does Utah law recognize a cause of action for parents to recover for the loss of filial consortium of a tortiously injured adult child?
Opinions:
Majority - Hall, C.J.
1. No. To state a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress in Utah, a plaintiff must have been placed in actual physical peril and feared for their own safety. The court reaffirmed its recent holding in Hansen v. Sea Ray Boats, which unequivocally adopted the 'zone of danger' rule from the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 313. This approach is preferred because it sets rational and workable limits on liability and avoids the confusion and inconsistent application that have resulted from more expansive bystander recovery rules, such as California's Dillon approach. Because the Bouchers did not allege that they were in the zone of danger, their claim fails. 2. No. The court declines to judicially create a cause of action for the loss of an adult child's consortium. The court noted that the majority of jurisdictions do not recognize such a claim and, more importantly, Utah law does not support it. In Hackford v. Utah Power & Light Co., the court held that Utah's Married Woman's Act abolished spousal consortium claims. It would be anomalous to recognize a claim for loss of an adult child's consortium while denying it for a spouse, a relationship often considered closer. Citing concerns about the potential for unlimited liability and the adverse impact on insurance availability and cost, the court concluded that the creation of such a right is a policy decision best left to the legislature.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Stewart, J.
1. Concurs with the majority's holding on negligent infliction of emotional distress. 2. Dissents from the majority's holding on loss of filial consortium. Justice Stewart argues the majority relies too heavily on a plurality opinion in Hackford and ignores that Utah law, through its Constitution and wrongful death statutes, already protects the parent-child relationship by allowing recovery for loss of consortium in death cases. He sees no logical reason to deny this recovery when a child is so severely and permanently injured that the basis for the filial relationship is destroyed. He dismisses the 'floodgates of litigation' argument as a cliché, asserting that the loss in this case is profound and should be legally cognizable.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Utah's conservative approach to tort claims involving emotional and relational harm. By strictly adhering to the 'zone of danger' test for NIED and refusing to judicially create a claim for loss of filial consortium, the Utah Supreme Court prioritizes limiting liability and maintaining clear, albeit restrictive, rules. The court's deference to the legislature on the consortium issue signals a preference for legislative action over judicial expansion of tort liability, particularly in areas with significant public policy and insurance implications. This positions Utah in contrast to more judicially active states that have expanded recovery for bystander emotional distress and relational injuries.
