Does the bystander theory extend the right to recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress suffered as a result of observing the pain and suffering accompanying the injury to another?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Lubner v. City of Los Angeles, 45 Cal.App.4th 525, 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 24 (Cal. App. 1996):
4 The bystander theory extends the right to recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress suffered as a result of observing the pain and suffering accompanying an injury to another. (See Thing v. La Chusa (1989) 48 Cal.3d 644, 647, fn. 1, 257 Cal.Rptr. 865, 771 P.2d 814.)
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
Is there any case law that limits damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress to those who contemporaneously observe both the negligent act and the injury it causes? (California, United States of America)
Can a "bystander" recover damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress? (California, United States of America)
Can an employee recover damages for a mental health injury sustained by his former employer as a result of intentional infliction of emotional distress? (California, United States of America)
In what circumstances will the children of a plaintiff who received negligent services of an attorney be able to recover damages for negligently inflicted emotional distress? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for a claim for emotional distress arising from an incident in which a patient suffered severe emotional distress? (California, United States of America)
Is negligent infliction of emotional distress an ordinary cause of action for negligence? (California, United States of America)
What is the difference between negligent misrepresentation and negligent infliction of emotional distress? (California, United States of America)
Does the statement of the tort itself, the intentional infliction of emotional distress, bring emotional distress within the ambit of the interests protected by the tort? (California, United States of America)
Can a plaintiff claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress without showing any physical injury? (California, United States of America)
Is a plaintiff's right to sue for negligently inflicted injuries a fundamental right? (California, United States of America)
