Leong Ex Rel. Petagno v. Takasaki
94 A.L.R. 3d 471, 55 Haw. 398, 520 P.2d 758 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff has a viable claim for negligent infliction of serious mental distress as a bystander to an accident even without suffering physical impact or demonstrating subsequent physical manifestations of the emotional trauma.
Facts:
- Plaintiff Troy Leong, a 10-year-old boy, lived with his parents and his stepgrandmother, Mrs. Louise J. Pittala.
- Leong had an extremely close, grandmother-like relationship with Mrs. Pittala.
- On January 7, 1972, Leong and Mrs. Pittala were crossing Kalanianaole Highway hand-in-hand inside a crosswalk.
- An automobile driven by defendant Dennis Takasaki approached them in the crosswalk.
- Leong saw the vehicle was not going to stop and halted his own movement, but Mrs. Pittala continued walking.
- Takasaki's vehicle struck and instantly killed Mrs. Pittala.
- Leong was standing several feet from the point of impact and was not physically touched by the vehicle.
- As a result of witnessing the event, Leong alleged he sustained severe nervous shock and permanent psychic injuries, but no resulting physical injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Troy Leong sued defendant Dennis Takasaki in the trial court to recover damages for psychic injuries.
- Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that as a matter of law, there can be no recovery for mental distress without physical injury.
- The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment.
- Plaintiff Leong, as the appellant, appealed the summary judgment to the Supreme Court of Hawaii.
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 bystander who witnesses a fatal accident involving a close relative have a cognizable claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, even if the bystander did not suffer any physical impact or subsequent physical injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Richardson, C. J.
Yes. A plaintiff can recover for negligent infliction of serious mental distress even without physical impact or resulting physical injury. The court abandons artificial barriers like the physical impact or 'zone of danger' rules, holding that freedom from the negligent infliction of serious mental distress is entitled to independent legal protection. Extending its prior holding in Rodrigues v. State, the court establishes that a duty exists when it is reasonably foreseeable that a defendant's conduct would cause serious mental distress to a plaintiff. The standard for 'serious mental distress' is that which a reasonable person, normally constituted, would be unable to adequately cope with. Factors such as the plaintiff’s proximity to the accident, their contemporaneous observance of it, and their relationship to the victim are not rigid requirements but should be used to gauge the degree of mental stress suffered. The court explicitly rejects a strict blood-relationship requirement, recognizing the cultural importance of extended family (ohana) in Hawaii, thereby allowing the plaintiff to prove the nature and closeness of his relationship to his stepgrandmother.
Concurring - Levinson, J.
Yes. While the justice previously dissented in Rodrigues because it extended legal protection to emotional ties to property, he concurs here because the court is protecting emotional ties between people. He views the interest in being free from emotional distress resulting from peril to a closely related person as standing on a much more acceptable legal footing. The justice fully concurs in the court's holding and its analysis of the standards for measuring the genuineness of the plaintiff's psychic injury.
Analysis:
This case significantly expanded the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) in Hawaii by becoming one of the first jurisdictions to eliminate both the physical impact and the physical manifestation requirements for bystander recovery. By adopting a pure foreseeability standard, the decision placed Hawaii at the forefront of tort law reform, moving away from rigid, arbitrary rules toward general negligence principles. The court's explicit consideration of Hawaiian cultural concepts like 'ohana' to define a 'close relationship' is a notable example of adapting common law doctrine to local societal norms, setting a precedent for how cultural context can inform legal analysis in future cases.
Unlock the full brief for Leong Ex Rel. Petagno v. Takasaki