Dillon v. Legg, 68 Cal. 2d 728

Case citation

Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...

 (1968), was a case

Legal case

A legal case is a dispute between opposing parties resolved by a court, or by some equivalent legal process. A legal case may be either civil or criminal...

 decided by the Supreme Court of California

Supreme Court of California

The Supreme Court of California is the highest state court in California. It is headquartered in San Francisco and regularly holds sessions in Los Angeles and Sacramento. Its decisions are binding on all other California state courts.-Composition:...

 that established the tort

Tort

A tort, in common law jurisdictions, is a wrong that involves a breach of a civil duty owed to someone else. It is differentiated from a crime, which involves a breach of a duty owed to society in general...

 of negligent infliction of emotional distress

Negligent infliction of emotional distress

The tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress is a controversial cause of action, which is available in nearly all U.S. states but is severely constrained and limited in the majority of them. The underlying concept is that one has a legal duty to use reasonable care to avoid causing...

. To date, it is the most persuasive decision of the most persuasive state supreme court in the United States; Dillon has been favorably cited and followed by at least twenty reported out-of-state appellate decisions, more than any other California appellate decision.

Factual background

A mother and her daughter witnessed the injury of her other child in a car accident caused by a negligent driver. The mother and daughter sued for emotional distress as a result of witnessing the accident. The trial court dismissed the claim under the prevailing zone of danger rule - the plaintiff needed to be in physical danger of the accident itself to recover for emotional distress.

Majority opinion

The court relied on foreseeability in order to establish whether or not a negligent defendant owed a duty of care

Duty of care

In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation imposed on an individual requiring that they adhere to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others. It is the first element that must be established to proceed with an action in negligence. The claimant...

to a bystander. The court urged a case by case analysis of several elements to determine if foreseeability would create a duty to a bystander:

• Whether the plaintiff was near the scene of the accident,
• Whether the plaintiff suffered an emotional shock from contemporaneously observing the accident, and
• Whether the plaintiff is closely related to the victim

Using these criteria, the court determined that it was foreseeable that the negligent operation of an automobile could cause emotional distress to a mother witnessing the injury of her child in an accident.

Traynor's dissent

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Traynor asserted that the case should have been decided according to the zone of danger rule enunciated in the case Amaya v. Home Ice, Fuel & Supply Co.

Burke's dissent

In dissent, Justice Burke asserted that the majority had adopted arguments that were previously rejected in Amaya. Burke criticized the guidelines offered by the majority as insufficient protection against possibly limitless liability. Burke viewed the limitations on liability inherent in the zone of danger rule as logical and necessary, and thought that such a pronounced change in liability rules should be adopted by the legislature and not the courts.

External links

• Edited text and audio of opinion at Audio Case Files