''Krouse v. Graham'', (1977), was a case decided by the

Supreme Court of California The Supreme Court of California is the highest and final court of appeals in the courts of the U.S. state of California. It is headquartered in San Francisco at the Earl Warren Building, but it regularly holds sessions in Los Angeles and Sacra ...

ruling that a lack of visual perception of an accident did not necessarily preclude 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 ...

Factual background

Plaintiff Benjamin Krouse was in his parked car outside of his house. The plaintiff's wife was removing groceries from the car. The car driven by defendant Homer Graham collided with the parked car, injuring the plaintiff and killing his wife. The plaintiff did not see the car hit his wife, but he could see Graham's car approaching and he knew that his wife was in its path. The plaintiff sued for

wrongful death Wrongful death claim is a claim against a person who can be held liable for a death. The claim is brought in a civil action, usually by close relatives, as enumerated by statute. In wrongful death cases, survivors are compensated for the harm, l ...

and emotional distress, and the trial court returned a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant appealed from a denied motion for a new trial.

Decision

The defendant alleged error in a jury instruction that said that Krouse could recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress by simply being present at the scene of the accident. The court needed to determine whether the absence of visual perception of the accident precluded recovery under the criteria enunciated in the 1968 decision ''

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 ...

''. ''Dillon'' required the "sensory and contemporaneous observance" of the accident. The court ruled that, despite not having seen the impact, Krouse fully perceived the accident because he knew where his wife was seconds before the impact, he saw the car coming, and he knew that she must have been injured in the accident. For the first time in California, the Supreme Court held that plaintiffs, in a statutory action for wrongful death, may recover so-called "non-economic" damages: damages for the loss of the deceased's "love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection, society, ndmoral support."

Related cases

A similar holding was made in the 1969 case '' Archibald v. Braverman'', but ''Archibald'' was 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 ...

''. ''Thing'', however, did not overrule the holding of ''Krouse.''Sulaiman, Yohann. ''Torts and Emotional Distress.'' Knol.com
/ref>

Notes

References

External links

{{United States tort case law Negligence case law United States tort case law 1977 in United States case law Supreme Court of California case law 1977 in California