stating that a duty giving rise to a tort action is “either completely independent of the contract or arises from conduct which is both intentional and intended to harm”
How later courts described this case
- stating that a duty giving rise to a tort action is “either completely independent of the contract or arises from conduct which is both intentional and intended to harm”
- explaining NIED claims based on an assumed duty may prevail only if “emotional 28 concerns are the essence” of the duty
- “Focusing on intentional conduct gives substance to the proposition that a breach of 4 contract is tortious only when some independent duty arising from tort law is violated.”
- “Focusing on 18 intentional conduct gives substance to the proposition that a breach of contract is tortious 19 only when some independent duty arising from tort law is violated.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*562 WERDEGAR, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I concur in the majority opinion insofar as it holds that a plaintiff may not recover damages for emotional distress based on a defendant’s negligent breach of a contract to build a house when the defendant has breached no duty independent of the contract. Although I read the record differently as to whether these plaintiffs did, in fact, present an independent claim for negligence, in view of the majority’s conclusion that plaintiffs did not present such a claim (see maj. opn., ante, at pp. 548, 554), the discussion in part C of the majority opinion (id., at pp. 554-558) is unnecessary. I therefore express no opinion on the circumstances under which a tort plaintiff may recover damages for emotional distress.
Mosk, J., concurred.