''Dillon v. Legg'', 68 Cal. 2d 728 (1968), was a

case Case or CASE may refer to: Containers * Case (goods), a package of related merchandise * Cartridge case or casing, a firearm cartridge component * Bookcase, a piece of furniture used to store books * Briefcase or attaché case, a narrow box to c ...

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 ...

that established the tort of

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 ...

. To date, it is the most persuasive decision of the most persuasive state supreme court in the United States during the latter half of the 20th century: ''Dillon'' has been favorably cited and followed by at least twenty reported out-of-state appellate decisions, more than any other California appellate decision in the period from 1940 to 2005. It was also favorably cited by the House of Lords in an important case on

nervous shock In English law, a nervous shock is a psychiatric / mental illness or injury inflicted upon a person by intentional or negligent actions or omissions of another. Often it is a psychiatric disorder triggered by witnessing an accident, for example a ...

, ''

McLoughlin v O'Brian ''McLoughlin v O'Brian'' 9831 AC 410 is an English tort law case, decided by the House of Lords, dealing with the possibility of recovering for psychiatric harm suffered as a result of an accident in which one's family was involved. Facts O ...

'' 983

Background

A mother, Margery M. Dillon, and her daughter Cheryl witnessed the death of her other child in a car accident caused by a negligent driver, David Luther Legg. Two-year-old Erin Dillon was fatally struck by Legg's vehicle while crossing Bluegrass Road near its intersection with Clover Lane (near the Dillons' residence in the unincorporated area of Arden-Arcade in

Sacramento County Sacramento County () is a county located in the U.S. state of California. As of the 2020 census, the population was 1,585,055. Its county seat is Sacramento, which has been the state capital of California since 1854. Sacramento County is the ...

). The mother and daughter sued for emotional distress as a result of witnessing the accident. The trial court dismissed the claim under the prevailing zone of danger rule: the plaintiff needed to be in physical danger of the accident itself to recover for emotional distress.

Decision

Majority opinion

The court relied on

foreseeability In law and insurance, a proximate cause is an event sufficiently related to an injury that the courts deem the event to be the cause of that injury. There are two types of causation in the law: cause-in-fact, and proximate (or legal) cause. Ca ...

to establish whether or not a negligent defendant owed a duty of care to a bystander. The court urged a case-by-case analysis of several factors to determine if foreseeability would create a duty to a bystander: *Whether the plaintiff was near the scene of the accident, *Whether the plaintiff suffered an emotional shock from contemporaneously observing the accident, and *Whether the plaintiff is closely related to the victim Using these criteria, the court determined that it was foreseeable that the negligent operation of an automobile could cause emotional distress to a mother witnessing the injury of her child in an accident.

Traynor's dissent

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Traynor asserted that the case should have been decided according to the zone of danger rule enunciated in the case ''Amaya v. Home Ice, Fuel & Supply Co.''

Burke's dissent

In dissent, Justice Burke asserted that the majority had adopted arguments that were previously rejected in ''Amaya''. Burke criticized the guidelines offered by the majority as insufficient protection against possibly limitless liability. Burke viewed the limitations on liability inherent in the zone of danger rule as logical and necessary, and thought that such a pronounced change in liability rules should be adopted by the legislature and not the courts.''Dillon'', 68 Cal.2d at 749-52

References

External links

Edited text and audio of opinion at Audio Case Files
{{United States tort case law Negligence case law United States tort case law 1968 in United States case law Supreme Court of California case law 1968 in California History of Sacramento, California Traffic collisions