Downey v. City of Riverside
90 Cal.App.5th 1033 (2024)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress as a bystander, a plaintiff must have contemporaneous awareness of the injury-producing event and that it is causing injury to a close relative, but need not be aware of the defendant's specific negligent conduct or causal role in the event.
Facts:
- Jayde Downey was on a cell phone call with her daughter, Malyah Jane Vance, giving her driving directions near an intersection.
- During the call, Downey heard Vance gasp in fear, followed a split second later by the sounds of an explosive metal-on-metal crash, shattering glass, and skidding tires.
- Downey immediately knew from the sounds that Vance had been involved in a serious car accident.
- After the sounds of the crash faded, Downey heard no vocalizations from Vance and understood her daughter was so seriously injured she could not speak.
- A stranger who rushed to the scene confirmed the severity, telling Downey over the phone to be quiet so he could "find a pulse."
- The intersection where the crash occurred was allegedly a dangerous condition due to the City of Riverside's design and maintenance of traffic markings and signals.
- Additionally, overgrown vegetation on adjacent private property owned by Ara and Vahram Sevacherian allegedly obstructed the view of traffic at the intersection.
Procedural Posture:
- Jayde Downey and her daughter sued the City of Riverside and property owners Ara and Vahram Sevacherian in Riverside County Superior Court (the trial court).
- The defendants filed demurrers to Downey's cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED).
- The trial court sustained the demurrers without leave to amend, dismissing the NIED claim because Downey did not allege contemporaneous awareness of the causal connection between the defendants' negligence and the injury.
- Downey (appellant) appealed the dismissal to the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District.
- The Court of Appeal, in a divided opinion, affirmed the trial court's reasoning that awareness of the defendants' tortious conduct was required, but reversed the judgment to allow Downey (plaintiff) leave to amend her complaint.
- The Supreme Court of California granted review to resolve the conflict.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
To state a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED), must a bystander plaintiff be contemporaneously aware not only that an event is causing injury to a close relative, but also of the defendant's causal role in that injury-producing event?
Opinions:
Majority - Kruger, J.
No, a bystander plaintiff is not required to be contemporaneously aware of the defendant's causal role in the injury-producing event. The court's reasoning is that the essential requirement for an NIED claim, as established in Thing v. La Chusa, is that the plaintiff perceives the injury-producing event and understands it is causing harm to a close relative. The court distinguished this case from medical malpractice scenarios like Bird v. Saenz, where the injury-producing 'event' (e.g., a misdiagnosis or radiation overdose) is often invisible to a layperson, making awareness of the event and the defendant's conduct functionally identical. In contrast, an event like a car crash, explosion, or fire is immediately perceptible as injury-producing to any layperson. The court reasoned that the emotional trauma stems from witnessing the event itself, regardless of whether the plaintiff simultaneously understands the specific negligent acts, like poor road design or overgrown vegetation, that contributed to it. Precedent in cases involving fires and explosions supports recovery even where the plaintiff was unaware of the defendant's underlying negligence at the time of the event.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the 'contemporaneous awareness' requirement of the Thing test for bystander NIED claims. It creates a clear distinction between patently traumatic, observable events like accidents and 'invisible' negligence common in medical malpractice cases. By holding that a plaintiff need not perceive the defendant's causal role in real-time, the ruling lowers the pleading-stage barrier for NIED claims arising from accidents caused by latent defects or conditions, such as dangerous public property or product failures. This shifts the legal focus away from the plaintiff's real-time understanding of fault and back to the core of the tort: the foreseeable emotional shock of witnessing a loved one's injury.
