Rob Reiland Freeman

Facts

Holding

Reasoning

Plaintiffs two stepsons were involved in a car accident, Plaintiff reports emotional harm from coming across his sons so injured and sues city of Dickinson for negligent infliction of emotional distress Plaintiffs son suffers brain damage in motor accident, is admitted to Brackenridge Hospital, due to neurological injuries son must be medicated or restrained to be kept safe, Hospital neglects to do this one day and he wanders off, falls down air shaft, and dies, and his father eventually stumbles upon the scene, sues for mental distress suffered as a bystander Plaintiffs son is out deer hunting with defendant, defendant accidently shoots plaintiffs son, seriously wounding him. He then brings him back to house in his truck honking, tells plaintiff his son has been shot, and shows the plaintiff his wounded son in the back of the truck

The Supreme Court of Texas rules that under the leading precedent of the zone of danger theory of bystander recovery, the Plaintiff fails to satisfy elements 1 and 2 and cam therefore recover no damages Court awards plaintiff damages for emotional harm (50,000) saying that his experience satisfies the bystander doctrine for emotional damages

Davis

The Court holds that Plaintiff fails to satisfy element 1 (proximity to the occurrence of the accident) as well as element 2 (shock from the contemporaneous observance of the accident) since he was warned by his neighbor. The Court notes that the fact that Plaintiff was only a stepparent had nothing to do with their decision, and that step-family should indeed be able to recover for emotional harm. Hospital argues that he wasnt in close proximity at the time of the accident, court dismisses this reasoning stating that actual observance of the incident is unnecessary, if there was some perception of the incident other than learning of it from others after it happened-court reasons that plaintiff was brought close enough to the reality of the accident to satisfy the requirements of bystander doctrine.

Lehmann

Court holds that the plaintiff does not satisfy element 2 of the bystander doctrine that he contemporaneously perceive the accident

The court holds that the plaintiff did not qualify as a bystander under the test set out by the bystander doctrine since he was told his son had been shot before he actually perceived this (could not have known his son was shot before defendant told him), therefore he did not experience the shock of unwittingly seeing his injured son

Synthesized Rule: In order for bystanders to be eligible to win damages for emotional harm caused by negligent actions they must not fail any of the elements of the zone of danger theory of bystander recovery.