BlogLine

The call that changed it all: California Supreme Court expands standard for bystander claims of negligent emotional distress

7/29/24

By: Jonathan Dang and William A. Hadikusumo

On July 22, 2024, the California Supreme Court ruled in Downey v. City of Riverside (S280322) that a bystander could assert a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress (“NIED”) for a traumatic event heard through the phone. In a unanimous 7-0 opinion, the Court held that a bystander could “witness” an accident by hearing it, even if the bystander was not physically present and was unaware of the defendant’s role in causing the victim’s injury at the time of the incident. 

Plaintiff Jayde Downey (“Downey”) was on a cell phone call with her daughter, giving her driving directions. During the call, Downey allegedly heard her daughter gasp in fear and shock, followed by the sounds of an explosive metal-on-metal vehicular crash, shattering glass, and rubber tires skidding or dragging across the asphalt. As the sound of tires faded, Downey, hearing no sounds or vocalizations from her daughter, understood that her daughter was injured so seriously that she could not speak. A good Samaritan at the scene confirmed Downey’s fears when he told Downey on the phone to quiet down so he could “find a pulse.” 

Downey filed suit against the adverse driver, the City of Riverside, and the owners of a private property adjacent to the intersection where the accident occurred. She alleged that the intersection and the adjacent property created an unreasonable and foreseeable risk of injury. She sought damages for the emotional distress she allegedly suffered as a result of hearing her daughter’s car crash. Downey’s claim was initially dismissed on demurrer, and the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order. Ultimately, the order was further appealed and heard by the California Supreme Court. 

For decades, the ruling case for NIED claims in California has been Thing v. La Chusa (1989) 48 Cal.3d 644, 668. In that case, the California Supreme Court established three elements for bystander NIED claims: (1) the victim was a close relative of the plaintiff, (2) the plaintiff was present at the event and aware that the event was causing injury, and (3) the plaintiff suffered serious emotional distress as a result. 

In Downey’s case, the second element of presence was at issue. Defendants argued that Downey had no contemporaneous awareness of the purported dangerous conditions of the intersection and adjacent property. Plaintiff argued that it was unnecessary for her to show contemporaneous awareness of Defendants’ tortious conduct and the causal connection between the intersection and the accident. Rather, Plaintiff argued that auditorily sensing the incident through the phone was sufficient.    

The California Supreme Court held that Downey satisfied the second element of awareness and reversed and remanded the judgment of the Court of Appeal. Justice Leondra Kruger stated, “For purposes of clearing the awareness threshold for emotional distress recovery, it is awareness of an event that is injuring the victim — not awareness of the defendant’s role in causing the injury — that matters.” Justice Kruger further clarified, “The emotional trauma that comes from witnessing such an accident exists regardless of whether the plaintiff is aware at the time of the accident of all the individuals or entities that have contributed to the accident through their conduct.”  

The California Supreme Court’s ruling in Downey greatly expands the ability of bystanders to sue for NIED claims. While previously, a plaintiff needed to demonstrate a “contemporaneous awareness not only of the injury to their loved one but also of the defendant’s role in causing the injury,” Downey represents a shift of focus to the emotional impact and trauma without necessarily being present at the scene of the incident.

Please do not hesitate to contact William A. Hadikusumo at william.hadikusumo@fmglaw.com or your FMG relationship partner to discuss this important case.