''Archibald v. Braverman'', (1969), was a case decided by the
California Court of Appeals that first ruled that visual perception of an accident was not a necessary prerequisite to recovery for
negligent infliction of emotional distress
The tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) is a controversial cause of action, which is available in nearly all U.S. states but is severely constrained and limited in the majority of them. The underlying concept is that one has ...
under the criteria enunciated in ''
Dillon v. Legg
''Dillon v. Legg'', case citation, 68 Cal. 2d 728 (1968), was a legal case, case decided by the Supreme Court of California that established the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress. To date, it is the most persuasive decision of th ...
''. The holding in ''Archibald'' was later overruled by the 1989 case ''
Thing v. La Chusa
''Thing v. La Chusa'', case citation, 48 Cal. 3d 644 (1989), was a legal case, case decided by the Supreme Court of California that limited the scope of the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress. The majority opinion was authored by As ...
''.
See also
* ''
Krouse v. Graham
''Krouse v. Graham'', (1977), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of California ruling that a lack of visual perception of an accident did not necessarily preclude recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Factual background ...
'', a case in 1977 with a similar ruling
Notes
References
External links
*
{{United States tort case law
United States negligence case law
1969 in United States case law
California state case law
1969 in California