{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Dillon v. Legg - others after its occurrence 3 Whether...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Dillon v. Legg 68 Cali. 2d 728 (1968) (excluded in final) Fact: Operative Facts: This case is under bystander liability. There was a driver who hit a girl, which caused her death, through negligent driving. The mother and sister is suing for emotional infliction. There was, however, contributory negligence by the mother and sister too. Issue: whether there was a duty by the driver to the mother and sister. Rule: To establish duty, the courts will look at: 1) Whether plaintiff was located near the scene of the accident as contrasted with one who was a distance away from it 2) Whether the shock resulted from a direct emotional impact upon plaintiff from the sensory and contemporaneous observance of the accident, as contrasted with learning of the accident from
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: others after its occurrence 3) Whether plaintiff and the victim were closely related as contrasted with an absnce of any relationship or the presence of only a distant relationship Rational: The courts found that as long as there is a duty and as long as there is foreseeability, then a person can sue on a tort of negligence. In this case, there was not enough to prove a tort of negligence due to contributory negligence, but it leaves the door open. Holding: Broad: Narrow: contributory negligence is a factor in determining foreseeability, for negligence. If a party has contributory negligence, it could place the situation in the realms past foreseeability from the defendant. Synthesis: Dissent/Concurrences:...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online