Lawson v. Management Activities, Inc.
81 Cal.Rptr. 2d 745, 69 Cal. App. 4th 652, 99 Daily Journal DAR 939 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An airplane operator does not owe a duty of care to prevent emotional distress to physically untouched ground spectators who reasonably fear for their own safety during a crash, as public policy considerations against imposing such a duty outweigh the foreseeability of the harm.
Facts:
- In December 1993, James Lawson and a group of coworkers were at a Honda dealership in Santa Ana.
- They witnessed a corporate jet, owned and operated by Management Activities, Inc., falling out of the sky.
- The employees feared the jet would crash directly into them and that they would be injured by the subsequent explosion.
- The jet crashed into the ground nearby, but did not physically strike or injure Lawson or his coworkers.
- The employees were among the first to arrive at the scene to offer assistance.
- Lawson and the other employees alleged they suffered serious and enduring mental anguish as a result of the fear they experienced during the incident.
Procedural Posture:
- James Lawson and his coworkers sued Management Activities, Inc., in a California state trial court for negligent infliction of emotional distress.
- The defendants filed a demurrer, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to state a valid cause of action.
- The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, dismissing the case.
- Lawson and his coworkers, as appellants, appealed the trial court's dismissal 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 an airplane operator owe a duty of care to prevent emotional distress to physically untouched ground spectators who reasonably fear for their own safety during a crash?
Opinions:
Majority - Sills, P. J.
No. The duty of care imposed on airplane operators does not extend to the emotional distress suffered by physically untouched spectators of plane crashes, even spectators who reasonably feared for their own safety. The court rejected a simple fear-for-safety or 'zone of danger' rule and instead applied the seven-factor test for determining legal duty. The court found that while the harm was foreseeable, foreseeability is of limited use in emotional distress cases and cannot support a doctrine of the 'eggshell psyche'. More importantly, factors weighing against duty were dispositive: the uncertainty of the injury (emotional distress is subjective and can be faked), the low level of moral blame (plane crashes are typically tragic errors, not acts of moral indifference), the limited deterrent effect of extending liability (operators are already deterred by the risk of death and property damage), and the significant public policy burden (the actuarial unpredictability of such claims would make air travel insurance prohibitively expensive and would dilute the pool of recovery for physically injured victims).
Dissenting - Sonenshine, J.
Yes. An airplane operator's duty of care should extend to ground spectators who suffer emotional distress from reasonably fearing for their safety. The majority disregards over a century of California Supreme Court precedent, beginning with cases like Sloane v. Southern Cal. Ry. Co., which established that a plaintiff can recover for emotional distress resulting from a reasonable fear of imminent peril, even without physical impact. The dissent argues that the majority creates an artificial and unsupported distinction between car crashes, where recovery for bystander fear is permitted, and airplane crashes. It criticizes the majority for substituting its own policy views and skepticism about emotional distress claims for established legal principles, including the fundamental tort doctrine that a tortfeasor takes their victim as they find them.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for its refusal to adopt a bright-line 'zone of danger' rule for emotional distress claims in California negligence law. By applying the traditional seven-factor duty analysis, the court emphasized that public policy considerations—such as the potential for limitless liability, the difficulty in verifying purely emotional claims, and the economic burden on a specific industry—can override the foreseeability of harm. This case establishes a strong precedent for limiting liability for purely emotional harm to bystanders in mass disaster scenarios, suggesting that courts will be hesitant to expand duty where it could lead to unpredictable and potentially crippling economic consequences.
