Catron v. Lewis
271 Neb. 416, 712 N.W.2d 245 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress as a 'direct victim' without suffering physical impact or having a familial relationship with the injured person, a plaintiff must have been within the 'zone of danger,' meaning they were at an immediate and high risk of physical harm from the defendant's negligent conduct.
Facts:
- Gaylen L. Catron was operating his motorboat on Center Lake at the Bridgeport State Recreation Area.
- Catron was towing Samantha Rader and Aimee Stuart, who were friends of his daughter and not related to him, on two separate tubes attached by 61-foot towropes.
- Skylar L. Panek, age 14, was operating a jet ski owned by Marvin R. Lewis.
- While Catron was maneuvering his boat toward the shore, Panek's jet ski approached.
- Panek turned to avoid colliding with Catron's boat but struck the tube Samantha Rader was riding on, which was approximately 61 feet behind the boat.
- Rader was killed in the collision.
- Catron witnessed the event, saw Rader in the water, and attempted an unsuccessful rescue.
- As a result of witnessing the event, Catron suffered severe emotional distress, including major depression and posttraumatic stress disorder, which required psychiatric treatment and prevented him from working for three months.
Procedural Posture:
- Gaylen L. Catron filed a lawsuit against Marvin R. Lewis, Skylar L. Panek, and the State of Nebraska in the district court (trial court) for negligent infliction of emotional distress.
- The defendants filed motions for summary judgment, arguing Catron was not in the zone of danger and was not related to the victim.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants, reasoning that Catron's emotional distress was not severe enough.
- Catron (appellant) appealed the grant of summary judgment to the Nebraska 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:
Does a plaintiff qualify as a 'direct victim' within the zone of danger for a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim when they are operating a boat more than 60 feet away from the point of a fatal collision involving a person they were towing?
Opinions:
Majority - McCormack, J.
No. A plaintiff does not qualify as a 'direct victim' within the zone of danger if they were not at immediate risk of physical harm. To recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress in Nebraska without physical impact, a plaintiff must be either a 'bystander' with an intimate familial relationship to the victim or a 'direct victim' within the zone of danger. Catron was not related to the victim, Rader, so he cannot recover as a bystander. The 'zone of danger' test requires that the plaintiff was in such proximity to the accident that there was a high risk of physical impact to them. Here, the collision occurred more than 61 feet away from Catron's boat. Although Catron saw the jet skis approaching, he admitted he was not in immediate danger and assumed they would turn, which they did. Because he was not immediately threatened with physical injury, he was not within the zone of danger and cannot recover for his emotional distress. This limitation is necessary to prevent 'nearly infinite and unpredictable liability' for negligent actors.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms and strictly construes the 'zone of danger' test for direct victim liability in negligent infliction of emotional distress cases in Nebraska. The court establishes a clear physical and temporal boundary for recovery, limiting it to those who were themselves in immediate peril of physical harm. This creates a bright-line rule that prevents the expansion of liability for purely emotional injuries to witnesses who are nearby but physically safe. The case solidifies the distinction between bystander liability (based on relationship) and direct victim liability (based on physical risk), making it more difficult for unrelated witnesses to traumatic events to recover damages.
Unlock the full brief for Catron v. Lewis