Bovsun v. Sanperi
473 N.Y.S.2d 357, 61 N.Y.2d 219, 461 N.E.2d 843 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff who is within the zone of danger of physical harm may recover damages for serious emotional distress resulting from the contemporaneous observation of serious injury or death inflicted by a defendant's negligence on a member of the plaintiff's immediate family.
Facts:
- In Bovsun v. Sanperi, the Bovsun family's station wagon was stopped on the side of a parkway due to mechanical issues.
- Jack Bovsun (father) was outside the vehicle, leaning into the open tailgate, while his wife Selma and daughter Mara Beth remained inside.
- An automobile driven by Gary Sanperi struck the rear of the Bovsun's stationary vehicle.
- Jack Bovsun was pinned between the two cars and seriously injured. Selma and Mara Beth were thrown about inside their car and were instantly aware of the impact and immediately observed Jack's serious injuries.
- In Kugel v. Westchester Industrial Park, the Kugel family was riding in their car when it was struck by another vehicle driven by Thomas Rooney.
- Lawrence Kugel (father), Lydia Kugel (mother), and their four-year-old daughter Karen sustained various physical injuries.
- Their one-year-old daughter, Stephanie, who was in Lydia's lap, suffered severe injuries in the collision.
- Stephanie Kugel died a few hours after the accident as a result of her injuries, which her parents observed.
Procedural Posture:
- In Bovsun, the plaintiffs (mother and daughter) sued the defendants in a state trial court.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims for emotional distress damages.
- The intermediate appellate court (Appellate Division) affirmed the trial court's dismissal.
- The Appellate Division then granted the plaintiffs leave to appeal to the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals.
- In Kugel, the plaintiffs (parents) sued the defendants in a state trial court (Special Term).
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, dismissing the cause of action for emotional trauma.
- The intermediate appellate court (Appellate Division) affirmed the trial court's order.
- The Appellate Division then granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.
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 a plaintiff, who is themselves threatened with bodily harm by a defendant's negligence, have a cognizable claim for damages for serious emotional distress resulting from contemporaneously observing the serious injury or death of an immediate family member also caused by the defendant's conduct?
Opinions:
Majority - Jones, J.
Yes. Where a defendant negligently exposes a plaintiff to an unreasonable risk of bodily injury or death, the plaintiff may recover damages for injuries suffered in consequence of the observation of the serious injury or death of a member of his or her immediate family. The court adopts the 'zone-of-danger' rule as a modification of the strict rule from Tobin v. Grossman, which had barred recovery for bystanders not in fear for their own safety. This rule is a moderate approach that avoids the potentially unlimited liability of the foreseeability test from Dillon v. Legg, yet allows recovery in meritorious cases. It is premised on the traditional negligence concept that the defendant has breached a pre-existing duty of care to the plaintiff by unreasonably endangering their physical safety, and the emotional distress is a recoverable element of damages flowing from that breach. The rule aligns with the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 436 and provides a reasonably objective standard that limits liability.
Dissenting - Kaye, J.
No. The majority's decision is a departure from years of precedent that consistently and correctly denied recovery for emotional distress from observing an injury to another, based on sound policy considerations. The 'zone-of-danger' rule is an artificial and arbitrary limitation that has no rational relation to the harm suffered, which is the emotional distress of seeing a loved one injured. The dissent argues that this decision creates a new duty, not just a new element of damages, and that the court's prior decisions in cases like Tobin v. Grossman correctly held that the law must limit the legal consequences of wrongs to a controllable degree to avoid an undue burden on the public. The new rule is not a defensible or fair line to draw and will inevitably lead to the far-reaching liability the court previously sought to avoid.
Dissenting - Wachtler, J.
No. Concurring with Judge Kaye's dissent, this opinion argues that even if the court is uncomfortable with the prior rule from Tobin v. Grossman, the principle of stare decisis and the institutional stability of the court are more important than remedying a perceived hardship in a specific case. The court should resist the temptation to depart from a consistently applied rule.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant shift in New York tort law regarding negligent infliction of emotional distress. By adopting the 'zone-of-danger' rule, the court carved out a major exception to the strict no-bystander-recovery rule established in Tobin v. Grossman. This holding expanded the scope of recoverable damages in negligence actions, allowing plaintiffs who were themselves at risk of physical harm to also claim damages for the emotional trauma of witnessing a close family member's injury or death. The decision established a new standard for such claims in New York, creating future litigation questions around the definitions of 'zone of danger,' 'contemporaneous observation,' and 'immediate family.'
