Engler v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co.
2005 WL 3434608, 706 N.W.2d 764, 2005 Minn. LEXIS 766 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff who satisfies the three traditional elements for a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim (zone of danger, reasonable fear for own safety, and severe emotional distress with physical manifestations) may also recover damages for the distress caused by witnessing the defendant’s negligent infliction of serious bodily injury upon a person with whom the plaintiff has a close relationship.
Facts:
- Geralyn Engler and her four-and-a-half-year-old son, J.E., got out of a car parked on the side of a rural road.
- Engler stood next to the car while her son walked about 30 feet away to a tree line.
- Beverly Wehmas lost control of her vehicle, causing it to veer toward Engler and the car.
- Engler initially believed Wehmas's vehicle was going to hit her and feared for her own safety.
- Engler then realized the vehicle was going to strike her son instead and screamed.
- Wehmas's vehicle struck J.E., throwing him into the woods and causing serious injuries that required hospitalization.
- As a result of the incident, Engler was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress syndrome and depression.
Procedural Posture:
- Geralyn Engler first sued the driver, Beverly Wehmas, for negligent infliction of emotional distress in district court.
- The district court certified a question to the court of appeals regarding the scope of damages, which the court of appeals answered by disallowing damages for witnessing injury to another.
- Engler and Wehmas then settled that lawsuit for Wehmas's $50,000 insurance policy limit.
- Engler subsequently filed a new lawsuit against her own insurer, Illinois Farmers Insurance Company, in district court, seeking underinsured motorist coverage.
- The district court ruled that Engler's recoverable damages were limited to distress from fear for her own safety, excluding any distress from witnessing her son's injury.
- Based on a stipulation that her damages, so limited, did not exceed $50,000, the district court entered judgment against Engler.
- Engler, as appellant, appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, which affirmed the district court's decision in favor of Illinois Farmers, the appellee.
- Engler then petitioned the Minnesota Supreme Court for review, which the court granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
May a plaintiff who satisfies the elements of a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) also recover damages for the distress caused by witnessing a defendant's negligent infliction of serious injury upon a close relative?
Opinions:
Majority - Blatz, C.J.
Yes, a plaintiff who satisfies the elements of an NIED claim may also recover damages for the distress caused by witnessing a defendant's negligent infliction of serious injury upon a close relative. The court holds that this does not create a new cause of action but merely expands the scope of recoverable damages for an existing one. The defendant breached an original duty of care to the plaintiff by placing her in the zone of danger, making the defendant liable for all resulting harm, including distress from witnessing injury to a third party. To recover such bystander damages, the plaintiff must still prove the traditional elements of an NIED claim (zone of danger, reasonable fear for self, severe distress with physical manifestations) and must also establish that the third-party victim suffered serious bodily injury and that the plaintiff has a close relationship with the victim. This approach preserves the clear, workable limits of the zone of danger test, which the court prefers over the less predictable 'foreseeable bystander' test.
Concurring - Anderson, G. Barry, J.
Yes, but the court should have specifically defined the 'close relationship' requirement. While agreeing with the majority's result, this opinion argues that leaving 'close relationship' undefined invites litigation and controversy over who qualifies. A better approach would be to explicitly limit recovery to a specific class of relationships, such as a spouse, parent, child, grandparent, grandchild, or sibling. This would provide a more workable, reasonable, and logical limit on a tortfeasor's liability, consistent with Minnesota's cautious approach to expanding the NIED tort.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the scope of damages for NIED claims in Minnesota, allowing a plaintiff to recover for what is traditionally known as bystander distress. However, the court explicitly rejects the broader 'foreseeable bystander' test adopted in other jurisdictions, instead conditioning such recovery on the plaintiff first satisfying the traditional 'zone of danger' test for themselves. By doing so, the court creates a hybrid rule that maintains a clear limit on the class of potential plaintiffs (only those in physical peril) while acknowledging the reality that a person's greatest distress may come from witnessing harm to a loved one. The decision creates new elements—'serious bodily injury' and 'close relationship'—that will shape the litigation of future NIED claims in the state.
