Culbert v. Sampson's Supermarkets Inc.
444 A.2d 433, 1982 Me. LEXIS 666 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A bystander not within the zone of physical danger may recover damages for serious, negligently inflicted emotional distress if their presence and the resulting distress were reasonably foreseeable to the defendant. Foreseeability is determined by considering the bystander's proximity to the event, their direct observation of it, and their close relationship to the direct victim.
Facts:
- Judith Culbert purchased a jar of Beech-Nut brand turkey and rice baby food from Sampson's Supermarket on or about November 4, 1978.
- On the same day, Culbert began spoon-feeding the baby food to her six-month-old son, Francis.
- While being fed, Francis commenced to choke and gag.
- Francis eventually spat up a hard, foreign substance that was in the baby food.
- As a result of witnessing her son choke and gag, Judith Culbert suffered great anxiety, tension, and emotional upset.
Procedural Posture:
- Judith Culbert (plaintiff) filed complaints against Beech-Nut and Sampson's Supermarket (defendants) in the Superior Court, Kennebec County, for negligently inflicted emotional distress.
- The trial court dismissed the mother's claim against Beech-Nut for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
- The trial court granted Sampson's motion for summary judgment against the mother.
- The trial court's rulings were based on its finding that Judith Culbert was not within the 'zone of danger' of physical harm.
- Judith Culbert (plaintiff-appellant) appealed the dismissal and summary judgment to the Maine Supreme Judicial 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 Maine law permit a bystander who is not within the physical 'zone of danger' to recover damages for serious emotional distress caused by witnessing a close relative being harmed by a defendant's negligence?
Opinions:
Majority - Violette, J.
Yes. A bystander may recover damages for serious mental distress foreseeably resulting from witnessing another person harmed by a tortfeasor's negligent act. The court rejects the arbitrary 'zone of danger' rule in favor of a foreseeability test, which better aligns with traditional tort principles. The court adopts the three-factor test from Dillon v. Legg to determine foreseeability: (1) whether the plaintiff was located near the scene of the accident, (2) whether the distress resulted from direct observation of the accident, and (3) whether the victim and the plaintiff were closely related. The court explicitly overrules prior precedent that required physical manifestations of the mental injury, holding that proof of serious mental distress is sufficient. Policy arguments against expanding liability, such as fears of fraudulent claims or a flood of litigation, are dismissed as unpersuasive and insufficient to justify denying a remedy to those who have suffered a genuine wrong.
Analysis:
This case marks a significant evolution in Maine's tort law by formally abandoning the restrictive 'zone of danger' rule for bystander recovery in negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) claims. By adopting the foreseeability framework from California's landmark Dillon v. Legg case, the court broadened the scope of liability, allowing recovery based on the relationship and sensory perception of the bystander rather than their physical location. Furthermore, by eliminating the requirement for physical manifestation of emotional harm, the decision modernizes the tort, recognizes the validity of purely psychic injuries, and trusts the judicial system to weed out frivolous claims. This holding aligns Maine with a growing trend among states to move toward a more flexible and just approach for compensating foreseeable emotional harm.
