Torts
48 Cal. 3d 644, 771 P.2d 814, 257 Cal. Rptr. 865 (1989)
Study notes for Thing v. La Chusa: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.
Plaintiffs cannot recover for emotional distress in bystander cases unless they directly witness the accident or its immediate aftermath, fulfilling foreseeability requirements.
The California Supreme Court in Thing v. La Chusa refined the rules surrounding bystander claims for emotional distress. The decision emphasizes the need for a tighter foreseeability test, requiring claimants to have witnessed the injury or the immediate aftermath of the event in a manner that provides a meaningful connection to the distress suffered. This case serves to clarify the boundaries of emotional distress claims, particularly in tort cases where a direct witness to the event plays a crucial role in establishing the closeness required for recovery. Professors may emphasize the impact of this case on subsequent rulings and the balance it seeks to maintain between allowing claims for genuine distress and prevent frivolous lawsuits.
Foreseeable Presence = Emotional Distress Blessing
| Case | Distinction |
|---|---|
| Dillon v. Legg | In Dillon, the bystander was near the scene and witnessed the immediate aftermath, which allowed recovery for emotional distress, unlike in Thing. |
| Elisa v. Cty. of San Mateo | Elisa allowed recovery where the plaintiff was directly affected by witnessing the event, showing that immediate presence and impact are crucial for emotional distress claims. |
Restricting claims to those who witnessed the event prevents emotional distress claims from becoming overly broad and ensures that courts can focus on tangible injuries, maintaining the integrity of tort law.
This rule may unjustly deny genuine emotional distress claims from parents or close family members who suffer significant trauma from events involving their loved ones, even if they were not direct witnesses.
This case is likely to appear on exams in the context of bystander emotional distress claims and the parameters surrounding them. Expect essays or hypotheticals exploring the refinements to the foreseeability test following Thing v. La Chusa.