Kriventsov v. San Rafael Taxicabs, Inc.
1986 Cal. App. LEXIS 2176, 186 Cal. App. 3d 1445, 229 Cal. Rptr. 768 (1986)
Rule of Law:
Recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress based on observing an injury to another extends to family members beyond parents and children, provided the relationship is sufficiently close and familial, particularly when there is a shared household and parent-like emotional bond, satisfying the foreseeability guidelines established in Dillon v. Legg.
Facts:
- Plaintiff Alexander Kriventsov lived in a single home with his nephew, his nephew's parents, and his nephew's grandmother.
- A close, warm, and loving relationship existed between Alexander Kriventsov and his nephew, which was analogous to that of a parent and child and characterized by intimate and mutual interdependence.
- Alexander Kriventsov witnessed a vehicle, operated by defendants San Rafael Taxicabs, Inc., et al., run over and fatally crush the skull of his nephew.
- Immediately after the accident, the defendants' vehicle fled the scene.
- Alexander Kriventsov gave chase to apprehend the fleeing driver.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Alexander Kriventsov filed a complaint against defendants San Rafael Taxicabs, Inc., et al., seeking damages for negligent infliction of emotional (and physical) harm.
- Defendants filed a demurrer to the complaint, arguing that the plaintiff had not pleaded a sufficiently close relationship.
- The trial court sustained the defendants' demurrer without leave to amend.
- The trial court dismissed Alexander Kriventsov's complaint.
- Alexander Kriventsov appealed from the judgment of dismissal.
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 alleging an intimate and interdependent living arrangement with his nephew, including a close, loving relationship analogous to a parent and child, plead a sufficiently close relationship to permit recovery for negligent infliction of emotional harm under the Dillon v. Legg guidelines?
Opinions:
Majority - Haning, J.
Yes, a plaintiff alleging an intimate and interdependent living arrangement with his nephew, including a close, loving relationship analogous to a parent and child, does plead a sufficiently close relationship to permit recovery for negligent infliction of emotional harm under the Dillon v. Legg guidelines. The court reaffirmed that Dillon v. Legg (1968) 68 Cal.2d 728, did not restrict recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) solely to parents and children, but instead established general guidelines based on the foreseeability of the risk, to be applied on a case-by-case basis. While Dillon set forth three general guidelines (proximity to the accident scene, direct sensory observation, and a close relationship between plaintiff and victim), these were intended as broader policy principles rather than rigid restrictions confined to Dillon's specific facts, as reemphasized in Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1980) 27 Cal.3d 916. Focusing on the 'closely related' guideline, the court distinguished previous cases that denied recovery, such as Kately v. Wilkinson (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 576 (no blood/marriage/functioning family unit), Trapp v. Schuyler Construction (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 1140 (blood relationship but no shared household), and Drew v. Drake (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 555 (unrelated cohabitants). In contrast, Alexander Kriventsov was not only the natural uncle of the deceased but had been living with him in the same household as part of the family unit. The court reasoned that many family units extend beyond parents and children to include grandparents, stepparents, aunts, and uncles, who often assume child-rearing responsibilities and develop profound emotional relationships. Therefore, it is reasonably foreseeable that these family members, when witnessing a child's negligent injury or death, would suffer similar harm.
Analysis:
This case significantly broadens the interpretation of the 'closely related' guideline for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) claims by moving beyond strict legal or biological definitions and emphasizing the functional reality of a family unit. By allowing an uncle living with his nephew to sue, the decision signals that courts should consider the depth and nature of relationships, especially those involving shared households and parent-like bonds, when assessing foreseeability of emotional harm. This precedent creates a more inclusive framework for NIED claims, potentially enabling a wider range of relatives and individuals in functionally equivalent family roles to seek recovery for the emotional impact of witnessing traumatic events.
