On September 27, 1964, David Legg was driving negligently when he struck and killed an infant in Sacramento County. Witnessing the accident caused Erin Lee Dillon's mother and sister emotional shock and pain, and they subsequently sued Legg for damages. The California Supreme Court's ruling in the case established the "bystander" theory of negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED)
(Dillon v. Legg, 68 Cal. 2d 728 (1968)).
According to a 2007 study, Dillon was the Court's most persuasive decision between 1940 and 2005; it was favorably cited and followed in more out-of-state opinions than any other California case.
Prior to Dillon, California law awarded emotional recovery only to a plaintiff in the "zone of danger," where she feared for her own safety
(Amaya v. Home Ice, Fuel & Supply Co., 59 Cal. 295 (1963)). But the justices in Dillon found that the case exposed the zone of danger rule as a "hopeless artificiality," and they extended eligibility for recovery to those who suffer emotional injury regardless of any physical danger.
Dillon established a new three-part test for bystanders, allowing them to recover if they were: near the scene of the accident; directly shocked by witnessing it; and closely related to the injured third party.
However, those criteria were narrowed 21 years later with requirements that NIED plaintiffs be: physically present at the scene of the accident and aware of the injury to the victim; more emotionally distressed by the incident than a disinterested person would be; and closely related by blood or marriage to the injured person
(Thing v. La Chusa, 48 Cal. 3d 644 (1989)).
Kari Santos
Daily Journal Staff Writer
