recognizing that “a causal link between psychic injuries suffered by the bystander and the shock or fright attendant to having witnessed the accident” can now be established due to advancements in medical science
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that “a causal link between psychic injuries suffered by the bystander and the shock or fright attendant to having witnessed the accident” can now be established due to advancements in medical science
- holding that a mother’s claim to emotional 9 distress from being a bystander to her daughter’s death “is not to be denied solely because the plaintiff was beyond the zone of physical danger . . . .”
- demurrer cannot be sustained where cause of action entitling plaintiff to relief is properly pled
- “ ‘It is fundamental to our common law system that one may seek redress for every substantial wrong.’ ”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
EAGEN, Chief Justice,
concurring.
The various positions and views have been extensively discussed in the scholarly opinions of Mr. Justice Roberts and Mr. Justice Nix and need no further explication by me. Needless to say, the problems presented instantly are extremely difficult. In the hope of rendering justice and at the same time not imposing any unreasonable burdens, I have reached the following conclusions. Recovery should be permitted in cases of this nature even where the plaintiff is beyond the scope of danger if (1) the plaintiff is closely related to the injured party, such as a mother, father, husband or wife; (2) the plaintiff is near the scene of and views the accident; (3) the plaintiff suffers serious mental distress as a result of viewing the accident and physical injury or suffers serious mental distress and there is a severe physical manifestation of this mental distress.
Justice mandates that the plaintiff be given the opportunity of proving that she meets the foregoing requirements. Hence, I concur in the order remanding the case for a new trial.