Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffappealmotion
tortplaintiffdamagesappealtrialaffidavitmotionsummary judgment

Related Cases

Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 6 Cal.4th 965, 863 P.2d 795, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 550, 62 USLW 2433
View Case »
Baldonado v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., 143 N.M. 297, 176 P.3d 286, 2008-NMCA-010
View Case »
Chadd v. United States, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2012 WL 12509209
View Case »
Morrison v. MacNamara, 407 A.2d 555
View Case »
Alvis v. Ribar, 85 Ill.2d 1, 421 N.E.2d 886, 52 Ill.Dec. 23
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Eskin v. Bartee, 262 S.W.3d 727

Facts

The Eskin family, including Brendan Eskin, was involved in a tragic incident on November 19, 2002, when Brendan was struck by a vehicle while being picked up from school. His mother, Ms. Eskin, and brother, Logan, were not present during the accident but arrived shortly after to find Brendan lying on the pavement in a pool of blood. They claimed to have suffered severe emotional distress from witnessing their injured family member.

According to Ms. Eskin's affidavit, the only evidence submitted on this point, she and Logan Eskin saw Brendan Eskin lying on the pavement in a pool of blood.

Issue

Whether family members who did not witness the injury-causing event can pursue a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress.

We have determined that a family member's allegation of a sensory observation of the immediate aftermath of an injury-producing event can provide the basis for a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Rule

A family member's allegation of a sensory observation of the immediate aftermath of an injury-producing event can provide the basis for a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress.

The tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress has emerged as an accepted cause of action within approximately the last half century.

Analysis

The court determined that the emotional distress suffered by family members who arrive at the scene shortly after an accident is foreseeable and valid for a claim. The court emphasized that the relationship between the plaintiffs and the injured party, along with their observation of the aftermath, supports their claim despite not witnessing the accident itself.

In this circumstance, we have determined that it is appropriate and fair to permit recovery of damages for the negligent infliction of emotional distress by plaintiffs who have a close personal relationship with an injured party and who arrive at the scene of the accident while the scene is in essentially the same condition it was in immediately after the accident.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, allowing the claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress to proceed.

Accordingly, we have determined that the Court of Appeals correctly reversed the summary judgment dismissing Ms. Eskin's and Logan Eskin's claims and properly remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Who won?

The Eskins prevailed in the case because the court recognized their right to pursue claims for emotional distress based on their close relationship with the injured child and their observation of him shortly after the accident.

We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals reversing the partial summary judgment dismissing the negligent infliction of emotional distress claims filed by Ms. Eskin and Logan Eskin and remanding the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

You must be