James v. Lieb
375 N.W.2d 109, 221 Neb. 47, 1985 Neb. LEXIS 1209 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A bystander with a marital or intimate familial relationship to a victim who is killed or seriously injured by a defendant's negligence has a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress, even if the bystander was not within the 'zone of physical danger' and did not suffer a physical manifestation of the emotional trauma.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs' son, Gregory Duwayne James, and their daughter, Demetria, were riding their bicycles north on 50th Street in Omaha, Nebraska.
- A garbage truck owned by Watts Trucking Service, Inc., and driven by its employee, John Milton Lieb, was backing up on Spaulding Street.
- The truck backed into the intersection, through a stop sign.
- The truck struck and ran over Demetria, killing her.
- Gregory helplessly watched the entire incident happen to his sister.
- As a direct result of witnessing his sister's death, Gregory became physically ill and suffered severe mental anguish and emotional distress.
Procedural Posture:
- The parents of Gregory and Demetria James sued Watts Trucking Service, Inc., and its driver in the district court for Douglas County, Nebraska (a court of first instance).
- The defendants filed a demurrer to the petition, arguing it failed to state a cause of action under Nebraska law.
- The basis for the demurrer was that the petition did not allege that the plaintiff bystander, Gregory, was within the 'zone of danger' or feared for his own safety.
- The district court sustained the defendants' demurrer and dismissed the plaintiffs' case.
- The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court of Nebraska.
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 witnesses the death or serious injury of an intimate family member have a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress against the negligent party, even if the plaintiff was not within the 'zone of danger' and did not fear for their own safety?
Opinions:
Majority - White, J.
Yes. A plaintiff bystander has a cause of action for negligently inflicted foreseeable emotional distress upon a showing of a marital or intimate familial relationship with a victim who was seriously injured or killed by a defendant's negligence. The court overrules its prior precedent in Fournell v. Usher Pest Control Co., which required a plaintiff to be within the 'zone of danger' and fear for their own safety. The court adopts the foreseeability approach from the California case Dillon v. Legg, finding it more logical and just than the arbitrary 'zone of danger' rule. Under this new standard, the key factors are the foreseeability of the emotional harm, the closeness of the relationship between the plaintiff and victim, and the severity of the victim's injury. The court also explicitly rejects the requirement that emotional distress must manifest in a physical injury to be compensable, reasoning that modern psychology can prove serious emotional injury without physical symptoms.
Dissenting - Caporale, J.
No. The court should have affirmed the dismissal and retained the 'zone of danger' rule. The majority's new rule imposes significant and unexamined societal costs for compensating psychic pain, which the majority opinion dismisses without adequate analysis. The dissent argues that the new foreseeability rule is just as arbitrary as the 'zone of danger' rule it replaces, but has the disadvantage of being less susceptible to objective proof. The dissent fears the new rule is vaguely defined and will lead to confusion about the limits of liability.
Concurring - Krivosha, C.J.
Yes. The majority is correct to adopt the foreseeability rule, and this decision has a broader implication. The concurrence writes to emphasize that the holding effectively establishes that any person in Nebraska may now recover for serious emotional distress proximately caused by a defendant's negligence, even if no physical injury is sustained. This extends beyond just bystander cases and fundamentally changes the requirements for all negligent infliction of emotional distress claims in the state.
Analysis:
This case marks a significant expansion of tort liability in Nebraska by abandoning the restrictive 'zone of danger' rule for bystander negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) claims. By adopting a foreseeability standard based on California's landmark Dillon v. Legg decision, the court aligned Nebraska with a modern trend favoring recovery for purely emotional injuries. The decision's most impactful element is its elimination of the physical manifestation requirement, which removes a major historical barrier to NIED claims and signals a greater judicial trust in psychological evidence. This precedent substantially broadens the class of potential plaintiffs in negligence cases involving serious injury and will likely influence how similar claims are litigated and valued.
