Portee v. Jaffee
84 N.J. 88, 417 A.2d 521 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff may recover damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress for the observation of the death or serious physical injury of an intimate family member, even if the plaintiff was not within the zone of physical danger.
Facts:
- Plaintiff Renee Portee's seven-year-old son, Guy Portee, lived with her in an apartment building owned and operated by defendants Edith and Nathan Jaffee.
- Defendants Atlantic Elevator Company and Watson Elevator Company were responsible for the installation and maintenance of the building's elevator.
- On May 22, 1976, Guy became trapped in the building’s elevator between its outer door and the wall of the elevator shaft.
- The elevator was activated, dragging the boy upwards and crushing him.
- Renee Portee arrived and for four and one-half hours watched as police officers unsuccessfully tried to free her son.
- During this time, she witnessed her son moan, cry out, and flail his arms.
- The child died from massive injuries while still trapped in the elevator as his mother observed.
- Following her son's death, Renee Portee became severely depressed and self-destructive, eventually attempting suicide, which resulted in significant physical injury and the need for extensive psychotherapy.
Procedural Posture:
- Renee Portee sued the building owners (Jaffees) and two elevator companies (Atlantic and Watson) in the New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division (trial court).
- Defendants Edith and Nathan Jaffee filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss Portee's individual claim for mental and emotional distress.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
- The Appellate Division granted Portee's motion for leave to appeal the trial court's dismissal.
- Before the Appellate Division heard the appeal, the New Jersey Supreme Court granted direct certification to hear the case.
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 parent who witnesses the protracted suffering and death of her young child due to a defendant's negligence have a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress, even if she was not within the zone of physical danger?
Opinions:
Majority - Pashman, J.
Yes. A defendant's duty of reasonable care extends to avoiding the foreseeable emotional harm that a parent would suffer from observing the death or serious injury of their child. The prior rule from Falzone v. Busch, which limited recovery to those within the zone of physical danger, is insufficient to address the profound emotional injury suffered by a close family member who witnesses such a tragedy. The court reframed the legal question from one of physical risk to the plaintiff to one of duty and foreseeability, concluding it is highly foreseeable that a parent of a young child will be nearby and will suffer severe emotional distress from witnessing the child's death or serious injury. To avoid limitless liability, the court established a specific cause of action with four required elements based on the principles in Dillon v. Legg: (1) the death or serious physical injury of another caused by defendant's negligence; (2) a marital or intimate familial relationship between plaintiff and the injured person; (3) observation of the death or injury at the scene of the accident; and (4) resulting severe emotional distress. This approach fairly balances the need to compensate for genuine, foreseeable emotional harm against the public interest in not imposing an unreasonable burden on conduct.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the scope of liability for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) in New Jersey by creating a bystander liability cause of action independent of the 'zone of danger' rule. By moving the analysis from the plaintiff's risk of physical harm to the foreseeability of emotional harm to a close relative, the court created a new duty of care. The four-part test established in this case provides a clear, structured framework that has been influential in other jurisdictions, defining the boundaries for recovery to prevent a flood of litigation while still providing a remedy for profound, foreseeable emotional trauma. Future cases will rely on this test to determine whether a plaintiff's relationship, observation, and level of distress qualify for this specific type of NIED claim.
