# Sinn v. Burd

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · July 11, 1979 · 486 Pa. 146

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9759492

## Case

- **Full name:** Robert G. SINN and JoAnne Marie Sinn, Administrators of the Estate of Lisa Anne Sinn, Deceased, Deborah Frances Sinn, a Minor, by Robert G. Sinn, Her Natural Guardian, and JoAnne Marie Sinn v. Brad Lee BURD. Appeal of JoAnne Marie SINN
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** July 11, 1979
- **Citations:** 486 Pa. 146; 404 A.2d 672; 1979 Pa. LEXIS 663
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Eagen
- **Judges:** Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Nix, Manderino, Larsen
- **Cited by:** 343 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9759492

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 . . . .”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9759492. Public record. Not legal advice.