HOLDING: While D placed NEG DEFECTIVE PRODUCTS ON MARKET which caused decedent to become stranded at night in remote location. Alleged NO FACTSA upon which either D would have had A LEGAL DUTY TO ANTICIPATE AND GUARD AGAINST criminal acts which were committed. DEFECTS NOT PROXIMATE CAUSE OF MURDER NONLIABILITY: EMOTIONAL UPSET WAUBE V. WARRINGTON (1935)(DANZER ZONE CASE - NO RECOVERY IF NOT IN DANGER ZONE TO BE IMPACTED BY THE NEGLIGENCE)FACTS: Mother witnessed child being struck and killed by driver of a vehicle. She died shortly thereafter because of emotional upset. Administrator brought charges against driver for damagesHOLDING: EMOTIONAL DISTRESS/SHOCK had to have been occasioned by FEAR OF PERSONAL INJURY to person sustaining the shock. NOT FEAR TO HIS PROPERTY OR PERSON OF ANOTHER.SOCIAL INTERESTS BALANCED. Cant extend recovery for physical injuries sustained OUT OF RANGE OF ORDINARY PHYSICAL PERIL. DILLON V. LEGG (1968)(MOVING AWAY FROM DANZER ZONE RULE – REJECTS DANGER ZONE RULE, GOING TO BYSTANDER LIABILITY RULE - LIMITED FORESEEABILITY)FACTS: While driving car, D struck and killed Dillon P a child she was crossing public street. Ps sued for NEG INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS. Mother NOT IN ZONE OF DANGER HOLDING: Process can never be perfect for damages in regards to emotional distress. CHIEF ELEMENT in determining whether D OWES A DUTY OR OBLIGATION TO P is the FORESEEABILITY OF RISK. COURT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT: 1. Whether P located NEAR SCENE OFACCIDENT 2. Whether shock resulted from DIRECT EMOTIONAL IMPACT on P from observanceof accident 3. Whether P and victim were CLOSELY RELATED. Accident REASONABLY FORESEEABLE?30 | P a g e
P a g e | 31THING V. LA CHUSA (1989) (DILLON TOO FLEXIBLE, REINING IN THE RULES INTO STRICTER REQUIREMENTS)FACTS: P son struck by auto and injured. P did not witness accident, but arrived at scene shortly after. P sued D for NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS. HOLDING: ZONE OF DANGER OVERTTURNED IN DILLON. NEW FORESEEABILITY TEST. Only if: 1.P CLOSELY RELATED to victim 2. P PRESENT AT SCENE OF TIME OF INJURY 3. AS RESULT SUFFERS SERIOUS EMOTIONAL DISTRESS BEYOND WHICH WOULD BE EXPECTED OF DISINTERESTED WITNESS.NONLIABILITY: PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS BURGESS V. SUPERIOR COURT (1992)(DIRECT VICTIMS CASE, POST THING, CAN RECOVER FOR EMOTIONAL DISTRESS IF DIRECT VICTIM)FACTS: P sought damages for NEG INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS against doctor and hospital, real parties in interest following NEG DELIVERY OF CHILD. HOLDING: DISTRESS REASONABLY FORESEEABLE HERE. LACK OF PHYSICAL INJURY DID NOT DEFEAT P CLAIM. FELICIANO V. ROSEMAR SILVER CO. (1987)D NOTLIABLE / D WINS (THINK OF THIS CASE LIKE DILLON – COURTS WANT FIRM RULES, COUPLES WHO ARE NOT MARRIED CANNOT RECOVER)FACTS: Injured and P lived together as for approx. 20 years, NOT LEGALLY MARRIED at time of accident. During those years, P used her partner’s surname and P and her partner had joint savings accounts, filed joint tax returns, jointly owned their home, depended on each other for companionship, comfort, love, and guidance, and maintained sexual relationship excluding others.