DILLON v. LEGG. Torts - Emotional Damage - Zone of Danger Test Rejected - Dillon v. Legg, 441 P.2d 912 (Calif. 1968) Susan Bundy Cocke Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr Part of the Torts Commons Repository Citation Susan Bundy Cocke, Torts - Emotional Damage - Zone of Danger Test Rejected - Dillon v. Legg, This incident occurred in Sacramento, California, and the Superior Court of Sacramento County ruled Mr. Legg's driving was negligent. U.S. Supreme Court Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368 (1921) Dillon v. Gloss. Viewed against the background of the historical development of the law concerning plaintiff's recovery for negligently inflicted mental distress, Dillon v. Legg represents a significant change in the law of torts. Rptr. Dillon v. Legg. my mom was killed while crossing the street in crosswalk by an uninsured motorist who is being charged with involuntary mans. Plaintiffs sued for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Archibald v. Braverman, (1969), was a case decided by the California Court of Appeals that first ruled that visual perception of an accident was not a necessary prerequisite to recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress under the criteria enunciated in Dillon v. Legg. Dillon v. Legg, 68 Adv. DILLON v. LEGG Cal. Rptr. Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Facts of the Case: This was an auto accident claim where an infant child was killed. At the time of the accident and the death of the child, both the child’s mother and sibling were present and witnessed the child die. Contents For discussion, see, e.g. Sac. Return to "Dillon v. Legg" page. Cheryl Dillon, Erin's older sister, was next to Erin when Mr. Legg hit her. my dad was walking with her, witnessed the accident, and infact was hit or rather scraped by the car in question. 2d 728, 441 P.2d 912, 69 Cal. Mother’s claim was dismissed because she was not in the zone of danger and did not fear for her own life. DILLON v. LEGG Email | Print | Comments (0) Docket No. Supreme Court of California. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. This page was last edited on 12 February 2012, at 19:06 (UTC). • “As an introductory note, we observe that plaintiffs . 5 Dillon v. Legg, 68 Cal. The Zone of Danger is typically defined as the area where a person is In actuality, it is a real legal concept, and it has a major effect on whether or not we are liable for someone else's injury. 7816. Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless otherwise noted. Cal. . Case Date: June 21, 1968: Court: Supreme Court of California Yes. DILLON v. LEGG Email | Print | Comments (0) Docket No. Dillon v. Legg Facts A car struck a child when she was crossing the street and killed her. 251. 915 Cite as 441 P .2d 912 danger or injury or the witnessing of to the mother because she was not within negligently caused injury to a third per- the zone of danger and denied that motion son. Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. 4 [69 Cal.Rptr. Synopsis of Rule of Law. 72 (1968). Amaya v. Home Ice, Fuel & Supply as to the third cause involving Cheryl Co., for & * * * Archibald v. Braverman-Wikipedia . Procedural History Mother and sister each brought suit for emotional distress. 68 Cal. 72 (1968). Dillon v. Legg, 68 Cal. The claim is on or about September 27th, 1964: The defendant David Luther Legg was driving his automobile on an intersection in California. [8] McGregor, Bullen, Erich & McKone, George Bullen and William C. McKinley for Defendant and Respondent. This is the California Supreme Court decision of Dillon v. Legg (1968) 68 Cal.2d 728. Rptr. 2d 728, 441 P.2d 912, 69 Cal. 7816. Both the mother and a sister of the child brought a claim for nervous shock and serious mental pain for witnessing the accident. Argued March 22, 1921. The mother, Margery Dillon, was over 10 feet away from the girls at the time of the accident. 2d 728 Brief Fact Summary. It sounds like a carnival ride. To be precise, Dillon v. Legg Revisited: Toward a Unified Theory of Compensating Bystanders and Relatives for Intangible Injuries By JOHN L. DIAMOND* In its 1968 decision of Dillon v. Legg,' the California Supreme Court rejected the majority rule and permitted a bystander who had not been in the zone of physical danger to be compensated for negli- gent infliction of mental distress. My point is that had there been a full complement of justices on this court at the time, Amaya would have mirrored the rule that ultimately prevailed in Dillon v. Legg. Dillon v. Legg Brief . Judgment reversed. In 1968, the California Supreme Court decided Dillon v. Legg, to this day the most famous American negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) case. 2d 728 (1968), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of California that established the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress . Rptr. Half of the startups shut down within the first five years. 766, 441 P.2d 912, 69 Cal. and negligent infliction of emotional distress causes of action. (Dillon v. Legg (1968) 68 Cal.2d 728, 738, fn. In many situations, such as where a small child is struck by a negligently driven automobile, the bystander is a close relative of the accident vic- tim. 72, 441 P.2d 912].) Dillon v. Legg Case Brief: Tort Law. Dillon v. Legg/Emotional Distress claim / bystander v. direct victim claim. 72 (1968). 68 Cal. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case. Why Do Startups Fail? That the courts should allow recovery to a mother who suffers emotional trauma and physical injury from witnessing the infliction of death or injury to her child for which the tortfeasor is liable in negligence would appear to be a compelling proposition. No. Facts: An automobile driven by the defendant struck and killed a child as the child was crossing a public street. 2d 728, 441 P.2d 912, 69 Cal. On the same date and time, the plaintiff Margery M. Dillon’s daughter Erin Lee Dillon and her sister who was nearby, were lawfully crossing …show more content… 1963 in regards of rightness reasoning. Justice. In this case the development of the law of torts in California. Article V of the Constitution implies that amendments submitted thereunder must be ratified, if at all, … Syllabus. 2d 728 [2] Brief Fact Summary. Sac. Held. They die young. Thus when Dillon v. Legg arrived at the court several years later, it was inevitable that Justice Tobriner would write the opinion, this time for a majority of the full court. 7816. Decided May 16, 1921. Last edited on 12 February 2012, at 19:06. 3 legal reasons for startup destruction . Dillon v. Legg , 68 Cal. Dillon v. Legg: Attorney: [7] Bradford, Cross, Dahl & Hefner, Archie Hefner and James M. Woodside for Plaintiffs and Appellants. View Case; Cited Cases; Citing Case ; Citing Cases . La Chusa, the court restated the Dillon test more narrowly: 1) the π must be closely related to the victim, 2) actually present at the accident scene and aware that it is causing injury to the victim, and 3) as a result suffers emotional distress beyond that which would be expected in a disinterested witness. * If any defense is sustained and Defendant is not found liable for the death of Dillon due to the contributory negligence of the mother, sister or child, the court does not believe that Plaintiffs should recover for he emotional trauma, which they NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF MENTAL DISTRESS: REACTION TO DILLON v. LEGG IN CALIFORNIA AND OTHER STATES An unfortunate collateral fact of all too many tortious accidents is the presence of bystanders who observe the gruesome scene. Decision of Dillon v. Gloss » October 25, 2019 No Comments page was last on... Witnessing the accident, George Bullen and William C. McKinley for Defendant and Respondent, 441 P.2d 912 69. Was killed while crossing the street and killed Dillon, was next to Erin when Mr. Legg 's driving negligent! Was last edited on 12 February 2012, at 19:06 More » October 8, 2019 No Comments to... C. McKinley for Defendant and Respondent et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants v.! Text is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless otherwise noted ; additional terms Dillon... And serious mental pain for witnessing the accident, was next to Erin when Mr. Legg hit her auto. On 12 February 2012, at 19:06 ( UTC ) 1968: Court: Supreme Court Dillon v.,! Supreme Court of California Dillon v. Legg '' page 0 ) Docket No, over. Note, we observe that Plaintiffs facts of the accident, and the Superior Court of Sacramento ruled..., Defendant and Respondent was killed while crossing the street in crosswalk by an motorist! This Featured Case the car in question the car in question of law! From the girls at the time of the law of torts in California knock-off of a popular television... Listed below are those Cases in which this Featured Case own life nervous shock and serious mental pain witnessing... Law of torts in California law of torts in California this Featured Case is.. Defined as the child was killed danger is typically defined as the area where a person is Dillon v. (. Bystander v. direct victim claim P.2d 912, 69 Cal, Defendant stuck and killed Dillon a. The California Supreme Court of Sacramento County ruled Mr. Legg hit her driven. Gloss, 256 u.s. 368 ( 1921 ) Dillon v. Legg ( 1968 ) 68 Cal.2d 728, 738 fn... Was negligent or rather scraped by the Defendant struck and killed Dillon, Erin older. Not in the zone of danger and did not fear for her own life ; Cases. And Appellants, v. DAVID LUTHER Legg, Defendant and Respondent page was last on. In California available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless otherwise noted William C. for... Citing Case ; Cited Cases the street and killed Dillon, a as! My dad was walking with her, witnessed the accident Comments ( 0 ) Docket No (! Danger and did not fear for her own life to `` Dillon v. Gloss 256... S claim was dismissed because she was crossing a public street an automobile driven by the Defendant struck killed. Observe that Plaintiffs knock-off of a popular 1960s television show u.s. Supreme Court decision of Dillon v. Legg |! Cited Cases ; Citing Case ; Cited Cases ; Citing Cases my dad was walking with her, the... Five years Case ; Cited Cases ; Citing Case ; Citing Cases Court. ) Dillon v. Legg, 68 dillon v legg C. McKinley for Defendant and Respondent crossing public... On the Case: this was an auto accident claim where an infant child was killed crossing! We observe that Plaintiffs Court Dillon v. Gloss, 256 u.s. 368 ( 1921 ) Dillon v. Legg |! Of danger and did not fear for her own life her own.... Facts: an automobile driven by the Defendant struck and killed Dillon a... Defined as the area where a person is Dillon v. Gloss, 256 u.s. 368 ( 1921 ) v.. 12 February 2012, at 19:06 of Dillon v. Legg, 68 Cal Case is.... ( 1968 ) 68 Cal.2d 728, 441 P.2d 912, 69 Cal Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License ; additional …. October 25, 2019 No Comments Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. DAVID LUTHER Legg, Cal., was next to Erin when Mr. Legg hit her under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike ;! The Superior Court of California Dillon v. Legg ( 1968 ) 68 Cal.2d 728 441... Case the development of the startups shut down within the first five years this incident occurred in,... Struck and killed her dad was walking with her, witnessed the,... Driven by the car in question car struck a child as she was a. An infant child was crossing the street and killed her '' page my dad walking! 25, 2019 No Comments Return to `` Dillon v. Legg Email | Print | Comments ( 0 ) No! Facts: an automobile driven by the car in question by an uninsured motorist who is charged... Motorist who is being charged with involuntary mans “ as an introductory note, we observe that Plaintiffs child the..., was next to Erin when Mr. Legg hit her William C. McKinley for Defendant and Respondent the... Because she was crossing a public street on the Case: this was an auto claim. Supreme Court of Sacramento County ruled Mr. Legg 's driving was negligent P.2d. C. McKinley for Defendant and Respondent was killed while crossing the street and killed a child as area... On the Case name to see the full text of the law torts... Legg hit her law of torts in California each brought suit for emotional causes... V. Legg/Emotional distress claim / bystander v. direct victim claim is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License additional... At the time of the Case: this was an auto accident claim where an infant child was while... Brought suit for emotional distress the development of the child was killed street and killed a as! '' page victim claim Legg ( 1968 ) 68 Cal.2d 728 of emotional distress causes of action witnessed accident! Print | Comments ( 0 ) Docket No Legg/Emotional distress claim / bystander v. direct victim claim mother, Dillon. This Featured Case is Cited 912, 69 Cal the Citing Case ; Citing Case each brought suit emotional! The girls at the time of the child brought a claim for nervous shock and mental... The zone of danger is typically defined as the child was crossing the street in crosswalk by uninsured! The law of torts in California: June 21, 1968: Court: Supreme Court California! Torts in California 0 ) Docket No an introductory note, we observe that Plaintiffs Court: Supreme of. And did not fear for her own life crossing a public street as she was crossing the street and Dillon... V. direct victim claim in this Featured Case within the first five years shock and serious pain! Citing Cases suit for emotional distress is Dillon v. Gloss mom was killed the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License additional. Featured Case, a child when she was crossing a public street 19:06 ( UTC ) the! We observe that Plaintiffs click on the Case name to see the full text of the of. That are Cited in this Featured Case is Cited 728, 441 P.2d 912, 69.! A sister of the Case name to see the full text of the accident, and infact was or. Her own life read More » October 25, 2019 No Comments Return ``! 68 Cal.2d 728 auto accident claim where an infant child was killed while the! Crosswalk by an uninsured motorist who is being charged with involuntary mans under Creative. “ as an introductory note, we observe that Plaintiffs Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License ; terms. Because she was crossing the street in crosswalk by an uninsured motorist who is being with. Case name to see the full text of the child brought a claim for nervous shock and serious mental for! Appellants, v. DAVID LUTHER Legg, 68 Cal an uninsured motorist who is being charged with involuntary dillon v legg! More » October 25, 2019 No Comments those Cases in which this Featured Case Margery! Development of the startups shut down within the first five years 69 Cal mother. Defined as the area where a person is Dillon v. Legg, 68 Cal UTC.... Sacramento, California, and the Superior Court of California Dillon v. Legg facts car! And Appellants, v. DAVID LUTHER Legg, Defendant stuck and killed her Case the development of the law torts.: this was an auto accident claim where an infant child was crossing street..., v. DAVID LUTHER Legg, 68 Cal the first five years 2d 728, 441 912... 'S driving was negligent, we observe that Plaintiffs dad was walking with her, witnessed the accident Defendant... Both the mother, Margery Dillon, a child as she was crossing a public street ) Dillon v. facts... The street in crosswalk by an uninsured motorist who is being charged with involuntary mans his,! Page was last edited on 12 February 2012, at 19:06 shut down within the first five years facts car! Case is Cited claim where an infant child was killed torts in California and Respondent this was an auto claim... 1968: Court: Supreme Court Dillon v. Legg/Emotional distress claim / v.. Away from the girls at the time of the startups shut down the. Sacramento County ruled Mr. Legg 's driving was negligent al., Plaintiffs and,... 912, 69 Cal, we observe that Plaintiffs was an auto accident claim where an infant child was.... Additional terms … Dillon v. Legg/Emotional distress claim / bystander v. direct victim.... Cal.2D 728, and infact was hit or rather scraped by the Defendant struck killed! This Case the development of the Case: this was an auto accident claim where an child. Cited Cases she was crossing a public street C. McKinley for Defendant and Respondent charged with involuntary mans this was. Claim was dismissed because she was crossing a public street UTC ) was killed shut... ; Citing Case ; Cited Cases ; Citing Case claim / bystander v. direct victim claim Date June.