The following excerpt is from Ortiz v. Alvarez, No. 1:15-cv-00535-KJM-GSA (E.D. Cal. 2015):
These are: (1) a duty of care on the defendant's part; (2) the defendant's breach of that duty of care; (3) causation; and (4) harm. Mendoza v. City of Los Angeles, 66 Cal. App. 4th 1333, 1339 (1998).
In "direct victim" cases, as in this case, California allows recovery even in the absence of impact and physical injury. Molien v. Kaiser Found. Hosps., 27 Cal. 3d 916, 919 (1980) ("emotional injury may be fully as severe and debilitating as physical harm, and is no less deserving of redress," therefore, "the refusal to recognize a cause of action for negligently inflicted injury in the absence of some physical consequence is . . . an anachronism").
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.