Trahan v. McManus
1999 WL 105238, 728 So.2d 1273 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To recover bystander damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress under La. Civ. Code art. 2315.6, a claimant must view a traumatic, injury-causing event and be contemporaneously aware that the event is causing harm to the direct victim. Observing the gradual, tragic consequences of a prior negligent omission at a later time and different location does not satisfy the statutory requirement of viewing the event.
Facts:
- Marie Trahan's son, Terry Trahan, was injured in a one-vehicle accident and taken to a hospital emergency room.
- Dr. Robert L. McManus examined Terry, but mistakenly read another patient's chart.
- Dr. McManus assured Marie Trahan that her son was not seriously injured and only needed bed rest.
- Based on this misdiagnosis, Dr. McManus discharged Terry Trahan about two and a half hours after his arrival.
- At his parents' home, Terry Trahan complained of severe pain and his condition visibly worsened.
- Terry Trahan died from internal bleeding in the presence of his parents, Lawrence and Marie Trahan, approximately seven hours after being discharged from the hospital.
Procedural Posture:
- Terry Trahan's parents, Lawrence and Marie Trahan, filed suit in a state trial court against Dr. McManus and his insurer for mental anguish damages under La. Civ. Code art. 2315.6.
- The trial court granted the defendants' exceptions of no cause of action and no right of action, dismissing the case.
- The parents (appellants) appealed to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, which reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for trial.
- Following a trial on the merits, a jury found Dr. McManus negligent but returned a verdict for the defendants, finding the negligence did not cause an injury that would not have otherwise occurred.
- The parents (appellants) appealed again to the Court of Appeal, which reversed the jury's verdict.
- The Court of Appeal, finding the trial court gave improper jury instructions, conducted a de novo review of the record, found the doctor's negligence caused the death, and awarded $100,000 in damages to each parent.
- Dr. McManus (applicant) sought and was granted a writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
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 doctor's negligent failure to treat a patient in an emergency room, followed by the patient's death hours later at home in the presence of his parents, constitute an 'injury-causing event' viewed by the parents that permits recovery for bystander damages under La. Civ. Code art. 2315.6?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Lemmon
No. A doctor's negligent failure to treat a patient does not constitute an 'injury-causing event' viewed by the parents for the purposes of recovering bystander damages. Recovery under Article 2315.6 is limited to circumstances where a claimant observes a sudden, traumatic event and is contemporaneously aware of the harm it is causing. The statute is designed to compensate for the immediate shock of witnessing such an event, not for the anguish that accompanies the subsequent decline and death of a loved one resulting from a prior act of negligence. Here, the doctor's negligent discharge, accompanied by false assurances, was not a shocking or traumatic event for the parents to observe. The parents were not contemporaneously aware that the doctor's omission was causing harm; the tragic results only became apparent hours later at home. This lack of temporal proximity between the negligent event, the observable harm, and the claimant's awareness of the harm precludes recovery under the statute's strict limitations.
Dissenting - Justice Johnson
Yes. The doctor's negligent discharge of the patient was the injury-causing event that deprived the patient of his chance of survival. The parents were compelled to witness the direct and graphic effects of this negligence as their son's condition deteriorated and he died in agony before their eyes. The doctor's negligence was the cause of the death, and the parents' observation of that death satisfied the requirements for bystander recovery. The majority's interpretation that the event must be the initial accident is too narrow; the 'injury-causing event' in this medical malpractice context was the negligent discharge, and the parents directly witnessed its fatal consequences.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the application of bystander damages in medical malpractice cases, particularly those involving negligent omissions like failure to diagnose or treat. By defining the 'injury-causing event' as a discrete, traumatic occurrence of which the observer is contemporaneously aware, the court makes it exceedingly difficult for plaintiffs to recover for the emotional distress of watching a loved one decline and die as a result of a medical error that occurred hours or days earlier. The ruling reinforces that Article 2315.6 is meant to compensate for the immediate shock of witnessing an accident, not for the grief and anguish of a prolonged death process, even if caused by negligence.
Unlock the full brief for Trahan v. McManus