California Supreme Court Watch

#23-147 Downey v. City of Riverside, S280322. (D080377; 90 Cal.App.5th 1033; Riverside County Superior Court; RIC1905830.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: In order to recover damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress as a bystander to an automobile accident allegedly caused by dangerous conditions on nearby properties, must the plaintiff allege that she was contemporaneously aware of the connection between the conditions of the properties and the victim’s injuries?

Petition for review granted: 7/19/2023

Case fully briefed: 1/08/2024

Cause argued and submitted: 5/22/2024

Opinion filed: Judgment reversed: 7/22/2024

See the Court of Appeal Opinion.

See the Petition for Review.

See the Oral Argument.

See the California Supreme Court Opinion.  (Downey v. City of Riverside (2024) 16 Cal.5th 539.)

“Plaintiff Jayde Downey was giving driving directions to her daughter over cell phone when her daughter was severely injured in a car crash. Downey heard the collision and its immediate aftermath, but she could not see what had caused it. She claims that the fault lies partially with individuals and entities responsible for the condition of the roadway where the crash occurred and has sued them for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The Court of Appeal concluded, however, that Downey was not entitled to recover emotional distress damages against these defendants unless at the time of the crash she was aware of a causal connection between her daughter’s injuries and the defendants’ alleged negligence in maintaining the intersection.

We conclude this was error. For purposes of clearing the awareness threshold for emotional distress recovery, it is awareness of an event that is injuring the victim — not awareness of the defendant’s role in causing the injury — that matters. In some cases, as in Dillon [v. Legg (1968) 68 Cal.2d 728], these two things may be effectively the same. In many medical malpractice cases, for instance, a bystander ordinarily will not be aware that injury is being inflicted on the victim without also being aware that medical practitioners are, through their deficient care, causing harm. But when a bystander witnesses what any layperson would understand to be an injury-producing event — such as a car accident, explosion, or fire — the bystander may bring a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress based on the emotional trauma of witnessing injuries inflicted on a close relative. This is true even if the bystander was not aware at the time of the role the defendant played in causing the victim’s injury.”

Justice Kruger authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Guerrero and Justices Corrigan, Liu, Groban, Jenkins, and Evans concurred.

In the news: S.C. Clarifies Its Holdings in Dillon v. Legg and Progeny, Metropolitan News-Enterprise (July 23, 2024).