Graves v. Estabrook
149 N.H. 202, 818 A.2d 1255, 2003 N.H. LEXIS 27 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An unmarried cohabitant who was engaged to the decedent may be considered 'closely related' for the purposes of a bystander negligent infliction of emotional distress claim if their relationship is stable, enduring, substantial, and mutually supportive.
Facts:
- Catrina Graves was engaged to marry Brett A. Ennis.
- Graves and Ennis had lived together for approximately seven years.
- On September 23, 2000, Ennis was riding his motorcycle with Graves following immediately behind him in a car.
- A vehicle driven by Franklin L. Estabrook failed to yield at a stop sign and collided with Ennis's motorcycle.
- Graves witnessed the collision, saw Ennis flip over the car's hood, and immediately ran to his aid.
- Graves observed that Ennis had suffered significant head trauma and was bleeding from the mouth.
- Ennis died from his injuries the next day.
Procedural Posture:
- Catrina Graves sued Franklin L. Estabrook in New Hampshire Superior Court, a trial court, for negligent infliction of emotional distress.
- Estabrook filed a motion to dismiss Graves' complaint.
- Estabrook argued that Graves could not recover because she was not related to the decedent by blood or marriage.
- The Superior Court granted Estabrook's motion to dismiss.
- Graves, as the appellant, appealed the dismissal to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, the state's highest 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 the 'closely related' factor for bystander recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress include an unmarried plaintiff who was engaged to and cohabitated with the decedent?
Opinions:
Majority - Duggan, J.
Yes. A plaintiff who lived with and was engaged to marry the decedent may recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress because the 'closely related' factor is determined by the substance and foreseeability of the relationship, not by a formal legal status such as marriage. The court rejected a rigid, bright-line rule limited to blood or marriage, finding it both overinclusive and underinclusive. Instead, it favored a traditional negligence analysis based on foreseeability, consistent with its precedent in Corso v. Merrill. The court analyzed and disagreed with the policy reasons for a bright-line rule articulated in the California case Elden v. Sheldon (promoting marriage, avoiding intrusion of privacy, limiting liability), finding that allowing recovery for unmarried cohabitants does not disincentivize marriage and that courts are capable of assessing the quality of interpersonal relationships. The proper analysis focuses on the nature of the relationship itself to determine if the emotional harm was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's negligence.
Dissenting - Dalianis, J.
No. The class of bystanders who may recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress should be limited to those closely related to the victim by marriage or blood. The dissent argues for a clearly-defined, objective boundary to liability to promote certainty in the law and avoid exposing defendants to infinite and unpredictable claims. Allowing recovery based on the subjective emotional connection between parties creates difficult problems of proof, requires intrusive inquiries into private lives, and lacks a principled distinction between an unmarried cohabitant and other emotionally close individuals like friends. A bright-line rule, while potentially arbitrary, is necessary for predictability and is consistent with how the court has narrowly construed other factors for bystander liability in past cases to reasonably limit a defendant's liability.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the class of potential plaintiffs for negligent infliction of emotional distress in New Hampshire by rejecting a formal, marriage-based limitation. By prioritizing a flexible, foreseeability-based standard over a rigid bright-line rule, the court aligns itself with a modern trend in tort law that focuses on the substantive nature of relationships rather than their legal status. The ruling establishes a new precedent requiring lower courts to conduct a fact-intensive inquiry into the stability and intimacy of an unmarried relationship, which could lead to more litigation but also allows recovery for foreseeably injured parties who would otherwise be barred.
