Gain v. Carroll Mill Company
1990 Wash. LEXIS 21, 114 Wash. 2d 254, 787 P.2d 553 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff may not recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress from witnessing a family member's injury unless the plaintiff was physically present at the scene of the injury-causing event or arrived shortly thereafter. Emotional distress suffered by a plaintiff not present is considered unforeseeable as a matter of law.
Facts:
- James S. Gain, a trooper for the Washington State Patrol, was killed in an accident involving a truck owned by Carroll Mill Company, Inc. on March 2, 1987.
- Gain's father and brother were not present at the scene of the accident.
- That same evening, Gain's father and brother watched the 11 o'clock news.
- During the broadcast, they saw film of the accident, recognized Gain's vehicle by its license plate, and confirmed he was the victim.
- They subsequently suffered emotional distress as a result of learning about Gain's violent and public death.
Procedural Posture:
- The father and brother of James S. Gain sued Carroll Mill Company, Inc. in a state trial court for negligent infliction of emotional distress.
- Carroll Mill Company filed a motion to dismiss under CR 12(b)(6), which the court treated as a motion for summary judgment.
- The parties stipulated that the plaintiffs were not present at the accident scene and were not placed in physical peril.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Carroll Mill Company, dismissing the plaintiffs' claim.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the trial court's dismissal to the Washington Supreme 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 a plaintiff have a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress resulting from the negligent bodily injury of a family member if the plaintiff was not physically present at the scene of the accident?
Opinions:
Majority - Dore, J.
No. A defendant's duty to avoid the negligent infliction of emotional distress does not extend to plaintiffs who were not physically present at the scene of the accident or who did not arrive shortly thereafter. The court reasoned that mental suffering by a relative not present at the scene is unforeseeable as a matter of law. Adopting this bright-line rule is necessary to place a reasonable limit on a defendant's liability, preventing potentially unlimited liability to anyone who suffers distress upon hearing of a loved one's injury. The court balanced the interest of the injured party against the principle that a negligent act must have some end to its legal consequences, relying on the foreseeability factors from cases like Dillon v. Legg which emphasize proximity to the scene and direct sensory observance.
Concurring - Brachtenbach, J.
This opinion concurs in the result but dissents from the majority's reasoning. The case should be dismissed on the narrow ground that the plaintiffs failed to establish sufficient facts showing how and when they learned of the death, which is essential for a foreseeability analysis. The majority's creation of a rigid, arbitrary 'physical presence' rule is a departure from the principle established in Hunsley v. Giard, which held that foreseeability is a question for the jury. This new rule is ill-defined ('shortly thereafter?'), ignores modern realities (like live television), and will lead to unjust outcomes by mechanically denying recovery to those with legitimate, foreseeable emotional injuries simply because they were not physically at the scene.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a bright-line, restrictive rule for bystander negligent infliction of emotional distress claims in Washington. It moves away from a flexible, fact-based foreseeability test, as advocated in Hunsley v. Giard, and towards a rigid geographical and temporal proximity requirement. This 'physical presence' rule limits the scope of a defendant's duty by declaring emotional harm to non-present plaintiffs unforeseeable as a matter of law. Consequently, it makes it easier for defendants to obtain summary judgment in such cases and harder for plaintiffs who learn of a loved one's injury through indirect means to recover damages.
