Fife v. Astenius

California Court of Appeal
91 Daily Journal DAR 9580, 284 Cal. Rptr. 16, 232 Cal. App. 3d 1090 (1991)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

To recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress as a bystander, a plaintiff must be present at the scene of the injury-producing event and be contemporaneously aware that a close relative is being injured at the time the event occurs.

Facts:

Meghan K. Fife was a passenger in a truck driven by Jennifer Astenius.
The truck collided with another vehicle on the street directly behind the Fife family's home.
At the time of the collision, Meghan's parents and three brothers were inside their house.
The family members heard the loud crash and saw debris fly into the air over a wall separating their property from the street.
None of the family members visually witnessed the accident itself.
Immediately upon hearing the crash, Meghan's father and brothers ran outside, climbed the wall, and discovered Meghan injured inside the truck.
Meghan's mother remained in the house and was informed that her daughter had been hurt by one of her sons a few moments later.

Procedural Posture:

The parents and brothers of Meghan K. Fife sued Jennifer Astenius in a California trial court, alleging negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Astenius filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the Fifes' claim did not meet the legal requirements for recovery.
The trial court granted Astenius's motion for summary judgment.
The Fifes, as appellants, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the California Court of Appeal.

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 family member who hears an accident and discovers a relative's injury seconds later, but was not aware the relative was being injured at the moment of impact, satisfy the legal requirement of contemporaneous awareness for a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress?

Opinions:

Majority - Sonenshine, Acting P. J.

No. To recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED), a plaintiff must be present at the scene of the injury-producing event and be aware that a relative is being injured at the time it occurs. The court relied on the three-part test from Thing v. La Chusa, which requires that a bystander plaintiff: (1) be closely related to the victim, (2) be 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, and (3) suffer severe emotional distress. The Fifes' argument that 'contemporaneously' can mean 'within a short period of time' is rejected. The court holds that allowing recovery for plaintiffs who perceive an accident but only become aware of the injury to a relative seconds or minutes later would regress to the 'ever widening circles of liability' that the La Chusa decision sought to prevent. Because the Fifes did not know Meghan was involved in the accident at the moment they heard the collision, they cannot satisfy the second prong of the test.

Analysis:

This decision strictly interprets the 'contemporaneous awareness' requirement for bystander NIED claims established in Thing v. La Chusa. It clarifies that 'contemporaneous' means simultaneous awareness of the event and the resulting injury to the relative, not merely being near the scene and learning of the injury shortly thereafter. The ruling reinforces a bright-line rule over a more flexible foreseeability standard, thereby limiting the scope of liability for NIED. This creates more certainty in tort law but makes it significantly more difficult for plaintiffs who are not direct, percipient eyewitnesses to the injury to recover for emotional distress.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Fife v. Astenius (1991)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature