Washington
How Dillon v. Legg applies in Washington: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Torts.
Washington law has adopted a recognition of the duty of care owed to bystanders in certain cases, closely aligning with the principles established in Dillon v. Legg. The state courts allow recovery for emotional distress to bystanders who witness an incident resulting in injury or death to a loved one, under specified circumstances.
In Washington, bystanders may recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress if they were within the zone of danger and reasonably feared for their own safety or if they witnessed the event causing injury to a close family member.
Confirmed that bystanders can recover for emotional distress if they were closely related to the victim and present at the scene.
Established that a plaintiff could recover damages for emotional distress even when not physically harmed, provided they fulfilled criteria related to close familial relationships.
Set precedents regarding emotional distress claims, emphasizing the necessity of a close relationship and the proximity of the bystander to the incident.
Washington's approach to bystander claims for emotional distress aligns closely with the federal approach as articulated in cases like 'Zelle v. New York', where proximity and relationship are critical. However, Washington places specific emphasis on the zone of danger doctrine more overtly in its rulings, while some federal jurisdictions employ a broader interpretation.
Understanding the principles of Dillon v. Legg and their application in Washington is crucial for the Tort section of the Washington bar exam, particularly on issues related to emotional distress and bystander claims.