Wooden v. Raveling
98 Daily Journal DAR 1932, 71 Cal. Rptr. 2d 891, 61 Cal.App.4th 1035 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) for a direct victim, absent physical impact or injury, is governed by general negligence principles and does not require the plaintiff to prove a preexisting consensual relationship with the defendant or that the defendant's conduct was outrageous.
Facts:
- Plaintiff's real property abuts a public street.
- Defendant drove his car in a negligent manner on the adjoining public street.
- Defendant's car collided with a second car on the street.
- The collision caused defendant's car to be propelled at high speed onto plaintiff's property.
- Plaintiff, who was on her property, perceived that defendant's car appeared that it would strike her.
- Plaintiff was placed in fear of being severely injured or killed by defendant's car.
- Plaintiff did not allege that defendant's car actually struck her.
- Plaintiff alleged suffering injury to her health, strength, and activity, sustaining bodily injuries and shock and injury to her nervous system, causing mental and physical pain and suffering, but did not allege any specific physical injury.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging negligent infliction of emotional distress.
- Defendant filed a demurrer to the complaint.
- The trial court sustained the defendant's demurrer without leave to amend, relying on Bro v. Glaser.
- Plaintiff appealed the trial court's 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 a direct victim claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) without physical impact or injury require proof of a preexisting consensual relationship between the parties or that the defendant's conduct was outrageous?
Opinions:
Majority - Zebrowski, J.
No, a direct victim claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) without physical impact or injury does not require proof of a preexisting consensual relationship between the parties or that the defendant's conduct was outrageous. The court clarified that the trial court erroneously relied on Bro v. Glaser (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1398, which created a new two-pronged test that is inconsistent with established California Supreme Court precedent. The court reaffirmed that NIED is a species of negligence, where recovery for emotional distress without physical injury or impact is permissible if the defendant breaches a duty owed directly to the plaintiff. This duty can arise from three alternative sources: a duty assumed by the defendant, a duty imposed by law, or a duty arising from a preexisting relationship, as consistently held in cases like Burgess v. Superior Court (1992) and Marlene F. v. Affiliated Psychiatric Medical Clinic, Inc. (1989). The Supreme Court's decision in Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (1993) explicitly rejected the notion that recovery is restricted to bystander or preexisting relationship cases, finding liability based on a duty imposed by law (illegal toxic waste dumping). Furthermore, the court found no precedent supporting Bro's introduction of an 'outrageous conduct' requirement for NIED, clarifying that this element is borrowed inappropriately from the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). Justice George's concurring and dissenting opinion in Potter provided a direct example (a pedestrian narrowly missed by a negligent driver) where NIED recovery is permissible based on simple negligence, without outrageous conduct. The court concluded that Bro's limitations are inconsistent with existing law and that general negligence principles suffice for direct victim NIED claims.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the parameters of negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) for direct victims in California, preventing intermediate appellate courts from imposing heightened, unwarranted restrictions. By definitively rejecting the 'preexisting consensual relationship' and 'outrageous conduct' requirements introduced by Bro v. Glaser, the court reaffirms that NIED is rooted in fundamental negligence principles. This ruling ensures consistency with California Supreme Court precedent, particularly Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., and potentially broadens the avenues for recovery for plaintiffs suffering genuine emotional distress due to another's ordinary negligence, even in the absence of physical contact or a prior relationship. It emphasizes that a general duty of care, such as driving safely, can be sufficient to establish liability for NIED when that duty is breached and causes direct, serious emotional harm.
