Trapp v. Schuyler Construction
1983 Cal. App. LEXIS 2515, 149 Cal. App. 3d 1140, 197 Cal. Rptr. 411 (1983)
Rule of Law:
For a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress to be successful when based on witnessing an injury or death, the plaintiff and victim must be 'closely related,' a standard which courts have narrowly construed to generally mean immediate family members or those related by law, not merely a close emotional bond such as that between first cousins.
Facts:
- Kenneth Trapp and Karen Trapp, minors under 14 years of age, were first cousins to Ian Glenn McSweaney.
- Kenneth and Karen Trapp and Ian Glenn McSweaney had a very close emotional attachment, played together often, and had a relationship analogous to siblings, loving each other as brothers.
- Ian Glenn McSweaney drowned in a swimming pool located on property owned by Schuyler Construction dba Regent Apartments.
- Kenneth Trapp and Karen Trapp directly witnessed the drowning of Ian Glenn McSweaney.
- The death allegedly resulted from Schuyler Construction's negligence in maintaining the swimming pool and its surrounding area.
- Upon witnessing the drowning, Kenneth and Karen Trapp sustained great emotional disturbance and shock, including gastrointestinal disorders, headaches, anxiety, and loss of sleep.
Procedural Posture:
- Kenneth Trapp and Karen Trapp, by their parents, filed a first amended complaint against Schuyler Construction dba Regent Apartments in the trial court for negligent infliction of emotional distress.
- Schuyler Construction (respondent) filed a demurrer to the first amended complaint, arguing that it failed to meet the foreseeability guidelines established in Dillon v. Legg.
- The trial court sustained Schuyler Construction's demurrer without leave to amend.
- The trial court entered an order dismissing the action.
- Kenneth Trapp and Karen Trapp (appellants) appealed the order of dismissal to the California Court of Appeal.
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 the relationship of first cousins satisfy the 'closely related' guideline for establishing foreseeability in a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress where the plaintiffs witnessed the victim's death?
Opinions:
Majority - Amerian, J.
No, the relationship of first cousins does not satisfy the 'closely related' guideline for establishing foreseeability in a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, even where a very close emotional attachment is alleged. The court relied on the foreseeability guidelines established in Dillon v. Legg, specifically the third factor concerning the relationship between the plaintiff and the victim. While Dillon allowed future courts to draw lines of demarcation, subsequent cases have narrowly construed the 'close relationship' guideline, excluding friends, housemates, or those in a 'meaningful relationship,' and generally limiting foreseeability to parties 'related by law to the victim.' The court found no reason to extend reasonable foreseeability to first cousins, considering them family members well beyond the 'immediate' family unit of parents and children. Although the plaintiffs alleged a sibling-like relationship, which the court accepted for the purposes of the demurrer, the court concluded that Schuyler Construction could not have reasonably foreseen such a specific quality of relationship among first cousins. Therefore, the relationship of first cousins does not meet the Dillon foreseeability criteria.
Concurring - Woods, P. J.
Concurred.
Concurring - Kingsley, J.
Concurred.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the narrow interpretation of the 'closely related' factor within the Dillon v. Legg foreseeability guidelines for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) claims in California. By explicitly declining to extend foreseeability to first cousins, the court reinforces a policy choice to limit potential liability to a predictable class of plaintiffs, primarily immediate family members or those related by law. This decision establishes a relatively bright-line rule, making it more difficult for plaintiffs with strong emotional, but less direct legal or familial, ties to a victim to recover for bystander NIED, thus impacting future cases by discouraging attempts to expand the scope of NIED claims beyond conventionally recognized close familial bonds.
