Waube v. Warrington
258 N.W. 497 (1935)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant owes no duty of care to a plaintiff who suffers physical injury from emotional distress as a bystander to a negligent act, unless the plaintiff was also within the physical zone of danger of the defendant's conduct.
Facts:
- Susie Waube was looking out the window from inside her house.
- She saw her child attempting to cross the highway outside.
- She witnessed a vehicle negligently operated by Warrington strike and kill her child.
- Susie Waube was not herself within the path of the vehicle or in any zone of physical danger.
- As a direct result of the severe shock and fright from witnessing the event, Susie Waube suffered physical illness.
- This illness ultimately caused Susie Waube's death.
Procedural Posture:
- Susie Waube's husband filed a wrongful death action against Warrington in a Wisconsin trial court.
- Warrington filed a demurrer to the complaint, arguing that the alleged facts failed to state a valid cause of action.
- The trial court overruled the demurrer, finding that the complaint was legally sufficient to proceed.
- Warrington (appellant) appealed the trial court's order to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
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 have a cause of action for physical injuries resulting from severe emotional distress after witnessing the negligent killing of their child, when the plaintiff was not in any physical peril themselves?
Opinions:
Majority - Wickhem, J.
No. A plaintiff cannot recover for physical injuries caused by fright or shock from witnessing another's peril unless the plaintiff was also within the range of ordinary physical danger. The court adopts the reasoning of Palsgraf v. Long Island R. R. Co., which holds that the core question is one of duty, not proximate cause. A defendant's duty of care is owed only to those who are foreseeably placed in physical peril by the defendant's negligent conduct. To extend this duty to bystanders who are outside the zone of physical danger would create a liability wholly out of proportion to the culpability of the tortfeasor. Such an extension would also open the door to fraudulent claims and create a legal doctrine with no sensible or just stopping point, as it would be difficult to limit recovery based on degrees of human relationship.
Analysis:
This decision establishes the 'zone of danger' rule for bystander recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress in Wisconsin. By rejecting a broader foreseeability test and focusing on the defendant's duty only to those within the area of physical peril, the court set a firm limit on the scope of tort liability. This case represents a classic judicial concern about preventing a 'floodgate' of litigation and creating potentially limitless liability for negligent acts. While many jurisdictions later adopted more liberal rules (like the Dillon factors), Waube remains a foundational case for the more restrictive approach that prioritizes foreseeability of physical harm over emotional harm to third parties.
Unlock the full brief for Waube v. Warrington