Sinn v. Burd

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
404 A.2d 672 (1979)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A plaintiff may recover damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress from witnessing a traumatic event, even if outside the 'zone of physical danger,' if the plaintiff's emotional injury was a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant's negligence. Foreseeability is determined by analyzing factors such as the plaintiff's proximity to the accident, their direct sensory and contemporaneous observance of it, and their close relationship to the victim.

Facts:

JoAnne Marie Sinn lived with her husband and two minor daughters, Lisa and Deborah.
On June 12, 1975, Lisa and Deborah were standing by the family's mailbox located alongside a road.
An automobile operated by Brad Lee Burd struck and killed Lisa, while narrowly missing Deborah.
JoAnne Marie Sinn witnessed the accident from the front door of her home.
Sinn was not in any personal danger of being struck by Burd's vehicle.
As a direct result of witnessing the event, Sinn became hysterical and emotionally shattered, suffering a shock to her nervous system, severe depression, and an acute nervous condition.

Procedural Posture:

The Sinns filed a four-count complaint against Brad Lee Burd in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas (trial court).
The fourth count of the complaint was brought by JoAnne Marie Sinn, seeking damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Burd filed a preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer, arguing the fourth count failed to state a valid claim because Sinn was not in the zone of danger.
The trial court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the fourth count of the complaint.
Sinn appealed the dismissal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (an intermediate appellate court).
The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's decision without a written opinion.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted allocatur to review 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 plaintiff state a valid cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress when they suffer severe emotional harm after witnessing the death of their minor child, even though the plaintiff was not within the zone of physical danger and had no reason to fear for their own safety?

Opinions:

Majority - Nix, J.

Yes. A plaintiff states a valid cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress by alleging severe emotional harm from witnessing a close relative's death, even if the plaintiff was outside the zone of physical danger. The court abandons the 'zone of danger' test established in Niederman v. Brodsky as unnecessarily restrictive and arbitrary, particularly in cases involving a parent witnessing injury to a child. The court rejects traditional policy arguments against such recovery, finding that modern medical science can prove causation, courts can filter fraudulent claims, and fears of excessive litigation are unfounded. Instead, the court adopts a foreseeability standard from Dillon v. Legg, holding that liability can be reasonably limited by assessing whether the emotional injury was a foreseeable consequence of the negligent act. As a matter of law, a mother's severe mental distress from witnessing the violent death of her small child is a foreseeable injury.

Dissenting - Roberts, J.

No. A plaintiff does not state a valid cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress when they were never at risk of physical harm and suffered no resulting physical injury. The majority's 'foreseeability' test is an arbitrary rule that defies rational application and will lead to monumental problems of limitation. It is practically impossible for a jury to distinguish between the emotional distress caused by witnessing the accident and the natural grief that accompanies a child's death. Furthermore, this new cause of action improperly circumvents the legislatively created Wrongful Death Act, which provides the exclusive remedy for losses suffered by survivors and has historically excluded recovery for mental suffering or solatium.

Concurring - Eagen, C.J.

Yes. Recovery should be permitted, but it must be strictly limited to cases where the plaintiff proves three specific requirements. The court should allow recovery beyond the zone of danger only if: (1) the plaintiff is a close relative of the injured party, such as a parent or spouse; (2) the plaintiff was near the scene and actually viewed the accident; and (3) the plaintiff suffered serious mental distress that resulted in physical injury or a severe physical manifestation of the distress. Since the plaintiff should have the opportunity to prove these elements, the case should be remanded for trial.

Analysis:

This case marks a significant expansion of tort liability in Pennsylvania by formally abandoning the 'zone of danger' requirement for bystander recovery in negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) cases. By adopting the more flexible, but less certain, foreseeability test from California's Dillon v. Legg, the court opened the door for claims by individuals who witness traumatic injury to close relatives without being in physical peril themselves. This decision shifts the legal focus from the plaintiff's fear for their own safety to the foreseeability of their emotional trauma from the defendant's perspective, impacting how future NIED cases involving bystanders are litigated and decided.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Sinn v. Burd (1979)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature