Contreras Ex Rel. Contreras v. Carbon County School District 1
1992 Wyo. LEXIS 188, 1992 WL 360641, 843 P.2d 589 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must observe the serious bodily harm or death without a material change in the victim's condition or location; furthermore, the proponent of excluded evidence must make an offer of proof demonstrating its relevance to preserve the issue for appeal.
Facts:
- On a cold day, James Contreras, a seven-year-old first-grader, was playing in the "high-activity" area of Pershing Elementary School's playground before school.
- While playing football, a fifth-grade boy named Chuck Juare ran backward to catch a pass, collided with James, knocking him down, and another fifth-grade boy, Nick Armijo, tripped and fell on top of them.
- School principal Robert Johnson and supervisors Belinda Wells and Kathleen Shamion arrived at the scene, found James crying in pain, and after assessing him, Johnson carried James approximately 200 feet from the playground into the school building and placed him on a cot in the principal's office due to the cold.
- James's mother, Brenda Contreras, was called and drove to the school, where she heard her son crying upon exiting her car and then found him on the cot in the office, in intense pain with a visibly twisted leg.
- Paramedics arrived, cut James's jeans, discovered he had a very painful inverted right femur fracture, and informed Brenda his leg was broken.
- James was subsequently taken to the hospital in an ambulance and fitted with a body cast, which he wore for two and a half months.
Procedural Posture:
- James Contreras, Brenda Contreras, and Odorico Contreras filed suit against Carbon County School District No. 1, Belinda Wells, Kathleen Shamion, Robert Johnson, Chuck Juare, and Nick Armijo in state trial court.
- The trial court entered partial summary judgment against Brenda Contreras on her claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress.
- Nick Armijo was never served with process, and the claim against Chuck Juare was dismissed after he reached a settlement with the plaintiffs.
- The remainder of the claims proceeded to a jury trial, which returned a verdict in favor of the defendants (Carbon County School District No. 1, Wells, Shamion, and Johnson) on all claims.
- Appellants (James, Brenda, and Odorico Contreras) subsequently moved for a new trial, which the trial court denied after a hearing.
- Appellants took a timely appeal to the Supreme Court of Wyoming.
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 observe the infliction of serious bodily harm "shortly after its occurrence but without material change in the condition or location of the victim" for purposes of a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim, when the plaintiff first sees their injured child on a cot in a principal's office after the child was moved from the accident scene? 2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by excluding photographs of other school playgrounds and testimony from other principals when the appellants failed to make a sufficient offer of proof demonstrating the evidence's relevance to the specific conditions and safety of the playground at issue?
Opinions:
Majority - CARDINE, Justice
No, Mrs. Contreras did not observe the victim in substantially the same location and condition as when the accident occurred, and thus did not state a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The court reaffirmed the `Gates v. Richardson` test for negligent infliction of emotional distress, which requires observation of the injury shortly after its occurrence but "without material change in the condition or location of the victim." The court reasoned that James's removal from the playground to the principal's office, where he was lying on a cot, constituted a "material change" in location sufficient to mitigate the immediate shock of the accident. The court explicitly declined to follow broader interpretations from other jurisdictions, asserting that the shock of seeing an injured loved one in a hospital or office setting is of a different quality than observing them at the accident scene itself, where the 'moment of crisis' for which recovery is allowed has passed once the circumstances materially change. No, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the photographs or testimony. The court held that the proposed photographs of other school playgrounds were irrelevant to the issue of whether the Pershing Elementary playground was negligently constructed, as they only demonstrated how other playgrounds were laid out under different conditions. Appellants failed to make a sufficient offer of proof by not presenting evidence that conditions at those playgrounds were similar or that their designs were pertinent to safety reasons related to James's accident. The court emphasized the importance of an offer of proof for both the trial court's decision-making and appellate review, noting that appellants failed to provide one even when given the opportunity at trial for the principals' testimony. The court also affirmed the trial court's discretion to waive its pretrial order deadlines regarding dispositive motions and found any notice error harmless given the substantive lack of a claim.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the strict application of the 'immediacy of observation' requirement for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) claims in Wyoming, emphasizing that a material change in the victim's location or condition, even shortly after an injury, can preclude recovery. It sets a high bar for NIED plaintiffs, requiring proximity to the initial 'moment of crisis.' Furthermore, the ruling underscores the critical importance of a proper offer of proof to establish the relevance of excluded evidence, serving as a procedural safeguard that ensures appellate courts have a clear basis for reviewing evidentiary decisions. This case provides essential guidance for attorneys on both the substantive limitations of NIED claims and the procedural diligence required to challenge adverse evidentiary rulings effectively.
