Quantcast

CA Supreme Court: Mom can sue Riverside for emotional distress caused by hearing daughter in car crash on phone

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA RECORD

Saturday, November 23, 2024

CA Supreme Court: Mom can sue Riverside for emotional distress caused by hearing daughter in car crash on phone

State Court
Webp krugerleondra

California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger | https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/

A mother who was on the phone with her daughter when her daughter suffered serious injuries in a car crash can press a claim for emotional distress under California law, even though she could not have known at the time how the crash happened, the California Supreme Court has ruled.

On July 22, the state high court overturned lower courts in the case, saying they wrongly applied a misplaced longstanding holding under California law that someone must be "present at the scene of the injury-producing event at the time it occurs" and also be aware of how the acts of a defendant may have caused the injuries, before they can file a lawsuit asserting such claims in court.

The decision restores the emotional distress claim brought by plaintiff Jayde Downey against the city of Riverside and other defendants.

The unanimous decision was authored by Justice Leondra Kruger.

"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," Kruger wrote.

"... When a bystander witnesses what any layperson would understand to be an injury-producing event — such as a car accident, explosion, or fire — the bystander may bring a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress based on the emotional trauma of witnessing injuries inflicted on a close relative. This is true even if the bystander was not aware at the time of the role the defendant played in causing the victim’s injury.”

The case landed in court when Downey sued the city of Riverside and the owners of a piece of property following a traffic crash in which her daughter, Malyah Jane Vance, was severely injured.

According to court documents, Downey was on the phone with Vance, giving her directions when she approached the intersection of Canyon Crest Drive and Via Zapata in Riverside. In that intersection, Vance's vehicle was struck by another car.

According to court documents, Downey heard the crash occur and then her daughter stopped speaking. However, Downey continued to try to communicate with Vance, frantically asking if she could hear her until a male voice answered and told her to be quiet so he could "find a pulse."

According to court documents, the man assured Downey her daughter was alive, but told her to hang up and dial 911 to direct emergency services to their location. 

Downey and Vance later sued the driver of the other vehicle, but also sued the city of Riverside and the owners of property bordering the intersection, identified as Ara and Vahram Sevacherian. The lawsuit claims the city and the Sevacherians did not properly maintain the intersection and their property, leading to poor conditions and poor visibility, making it difficult for drivers to see oncoming or turning vehicles, enhancing the chances of a collision.

In addition to those claims, Downey leveled counts of negligent infliction of emotional distress at the city and the Sevacherians, claiming they should pay for the emotional trauma she endured listening to her daughter's crash.

In the lower courts, the city and the Sevacherians sought to dismiss that count, saying Downey did not witness the crash and so failed to demonstrate how she could have known at the time of the crash that the alleged poor road conditions at the intersection had caused the crash.

The defendants won in Riverside County Superior Court and in a divided decision from a three-justice panel of the California Fifth District Appellate Court.

While noting that they believed Downey had established the phone conversation demonstrated that she was "'present' at the scene," the divided appeals court still sided with the defendants, noting that Downey was still "aware only of the 'result or consequence' of the defendants' alleged injury-causing conduct, not the conduct itself."

At the California Supreme Court, however, the justices said the lower courts were wrong.

They said the lower courts have misread prior Supreme Court holdings to find that California law requires plaintiffs to prove they were aware of the risk and threat presented by conditions caused by a defendant at the time of an injury-causing incident, like a car crash in order to press an infliction of emotional distress claim.

The state high court noted that several recent rulings "have at least implicitly rejected such a requirement by allowing recovery for plaintiffs who have witnessed injurious explosions, fires, and other similar accidents..." and in which "plaintiffs witnessed shocking and traumatic events in which their close relatives were severely injured or killed..." "... even if they could have been aware at the time that the defendant had contributed to these disastrous events."

With this understanding of the law, the high court said the lower courts were wrong to block Downey from pressing her claims and seeking a payout to compensate her for her claim of emotional distress. 

And they particularly rejected assertions that this should change because more and more people will bring such claims in the event they are able to use modern technology to remotely witness their loved ones' trauma.

"We see no reason why this balance ought to tip in favor of circumscribing recovery based not on whether the plaintiff has suffered emotional harm from witnessing a loved one being injured, but whether the plaintiff is also contemporaneously aware of all those responsible for those injury," the justices said. 

"We can assume along with the City and the Sevacherians that current telecommunications technology has created more scenarios where potential plaintiffs might witness a loved one being injured. But they have not explained how requiring contemporaneous understanding of how each tortfeasor has contributed to the injury is a necessary, fair, or administrable limitation on liability."

Downey has been represented by attorneys Greg Rizio and Eric I. Ryanen, of the Rizio Lipinsky Law Firm, of San Bernardino.

The Sevacherians have been represented by attorneys Gary H. Klein and Shelby Kennick, of the CP Law Group, of Irvine; and Christian E. Foy Nagy, of Freeman Mathis & Gary, of Los Angeles.

The city of Riverside was represented by city attorney Phaedra Norton and deputy city attorneys Michel A. Verska, Cecila Rojas and Edward J. Reid.

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

More News