Estrada v. Aeronaves De Mexico, SA.
967 F.2d 1421 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff may recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress as a bystander if they are present at the scene of a continuous injury-producing event, such as a fire, and have contemporaneous sensory awareness that the event is causing injury to a close relative.
Facts:
- On the morning of August 31, 1986, Theresa Estrada left her husband and three children at her home to go to a nearby grocery store.
- While returning from the store, Estrada saw, heard, and felt a large explosion which was, unbeknownst to her at that moment, an Aeromexico airliner crashing into her home.
- Within minutes, Estrada arrived at her property to find her home engulfed in flames.
- Estrada was aware that her husband and children, whom she had just left, were inside the burning house.
- Estrada's husband and two of her children perished in the fire.
Procedural Posture:
- Theresa Estrada sued the United States, Aeromexico, and the Kramer Estate in federal district court (court of first instance) for wrongful death and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
- In a trial on liability, the district court found the United States and the Kramer Estate each 50% responsible for the accident.
- In a subsequent trial on damages, the district court awarded Estrada $1 million for negligent infliction of emotional distress, making the United States liable for $500,000 of that award.
- The United States (appellant) appealed only the damages award for negligent infliction of emotional distress to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with Theresa Estrada as the appellee.
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 who arrives at her home minutes after a plane crash to find it engulfed in flames, knowing her family is inside, satisfy the requirement of being 'present at the scene of the injury producing event at the time it occurs and is then aware that it is causing injury to the victim' under California law?
Opinions:
Majority - Hug, Circuit Judge
Yes. A plaintiff who is present at the scene of a prolonged injury-producing event and is aware that it is causing injury to a close relative meets the requirements for recovering damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The court reasoned that the 'injury-producing event' was not the instantaneous plane crash, but the continuous fire that consumed the home. Unlike plaintiffs in prior cases who learned of an injury only after the event concluded, Estrada was present during the fire and contemporaneously aware that it was injuring her family inside. This experience is distinct from merely being informed of a tragedy after the fact, aligning instead with cases like Wilks and Krouse where sensory awareness of the injury-producing event was sufficient, even without direct visual perception of the initial impact. Therefore, Estrada's presence and awareness during the ongoing fire satisfies the second prong of the test established in Thing v. La Chusa.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'contemporaneous awareness' requirement from Thing v. La Chusa, extending its application to continuous or prolonged injury-producing events rather than just sudden, instantaneous accidents. It establishes that a plaintiff need not witness the initial moment of negligent impact if they arrive and personally observe an ongoing event causing injury to their loved ones. This prevents an overly rigid interpretation of the presence requirement and broadens potential recovery for bystanders in situations involving protracted harm, such as fires, explosions, or other ongoing disasters.
Unlock the full brief for Estrada v. Aeronaves De Mexico, SA.