Pearsall v. Emhart Industries, Inc.
1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21422, 20 Fed. R. Serv. 487, 599 F.Supp. 207 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff may recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress as a bystander if they arrive at the scene of a fatal accident shortly after it occurs and suffer shock from the direct, sensory, and contemporaneous observance of the immediate aftermath, even if they did not witness the fatal injury itself.
Facts:
- Linda Pearsall's home contained heat and smoke detectors manufactured by the predecessors of Emhart Industries and Notifier Company.
- A fire broke out in the Pearsall home while Linda Pearsall was away.
- The heat and smoke detectors failed to function during the fire.
- Pearsall's husband and two children died in the fire.
- Pearsall arrived at her home while firefighters were bringing the blaze under control.
- At the scene, she witnessed the ongoing fire and saw the bodies of her husband and children.
- Shortly thereafter at the hospital, she witnessed the bodies being removed from the ambulance and touched her daughter's body, which was still hot.
Procedural Posture:
- Linda Pearsall filed a lawsuit against Emhart Industries and Notifier Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
- The case was tried before a jury on theories of negligence and products liability.
- The jury found for the plaintiff, Linda Pearsall, and awarded her damages for wrongful death, a survival action, and her own emotional distress.
- The court added delay damages to the jury's award and entered a final judgment in favor of Pearsall.
- Defendants Emhart Industries and Notifier Company filed post-trial motions challenging the verdict and judgment on multiple grounds, including that the claim for emotional distress should not have been submitted to the jury.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Pennsylvania law, does a plaintiff state a valid claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress when she did not witness the death of her family members in a house fire, but arrived at the scene while the fire was still smoldering and personally witnessed the fire and the bodies of her deceased relatives?
Opinions:
Majority - Katz, J.
Yes. A plaintiff can recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress under these circumstances. Pennsylvania law uses a three-factor foreseeability test to determine if a bystander can recover for emotional distress: (1) whether the plaintiff was near the scene, (2) whether the shock resulted from a direct emotional impact from the sensory and contemporaneous observance of the accident, and (3) whether the plaintiff and victim were closely related. While Pearsall did not see the moment of her family's death, she arrived at a still-active fire scene and had a direct sensory experience of its immediate, horrific aftermath. Her shock was not caused by being told of the event, but resulted 'from the direct impact upon her senses of the fire and its carnage.' This direct observance of the aftermath is sufficient to meet the second prong of the foreseeability test, making her emotional distress a foreseeable consequence of the defendants' negligence.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the 'bystander rule' for negligent infliction of emotional distress in Pennsylvania. It clarifies that the requirement of 'sensory and contemporaneous observance of the accident' does not rigidly require witnessing the moment of impact. Instead, a plaintiff who arrives at the scene moments later and personally witnesses the gruesome and immediate aftermath can still recover. This shifts the focus from being an eyewitness to the injury-producing event itself to the directness and immediacy of the emotional shock experienced by the plaintiff from observing the consequences, thereby lowering the barrier for recovery in similar tragic cases.
