Assignment task: Revise this case
Case Brief Ledger v. Tippitt (1985) 164 Cal. App. 3d 625
Facts: On March 15, 1983, Richard Arters II, his business partner, Jennifer and their infant son were traveling to Ojai. A vehicle driven by the respondent, Ronald W. Tippitt, encroached on Richard's lane causing Richard to take sudden evasive action to avoid a collision. The two vehicles ultimately came to a stop and both drivers got out of the vehicle and a verbal altercation ensued between Richard and the respondent.
Jennifer remained in the vehicle with their infant child but could witness the events. Suddenly, and without warning, the respondent took out a knife and stabbed Richard in the chest in full view of Jennifer. When Richard fell to the ground, Jennifer rushed to his aid, kneeled by Richard and helplessly watched and cried as Richard was in her arms bleeding profusely until he went into a coma and died 20 minutes later. Jennifer and Richard had enjoyed a "stable and significant" non-marital relationship and had began cohabitating since 1981 when they were in their teens. They had planned to be married on December 6, 1981, but prior to their wedding, Richard was involved in a motorcycle accident and Jennifer had nursed him back to health. After that they planned to go to Nevada to be married and Jennifer had obtained a birth certificate and written authorization from her parents (because of her age) to be married to Richard but it was deemed insufficient under Nevada law. Jennifer and Richard had a child together and they lived together as a family with Richard being the sole support for Jennifer and their son. Jennifer filed a suit against Tippitt. Tippitt filed a demurrer. The demurrer to the causes of action was sustained without leave to amend, and Jennifer Ledger appeals from the judgment of dismissal.
Issue: The issue before the court is whether the Plaintiff has a cause of action for loss of consortium? The second issue before the court is whether the Plaintiff has a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress?
Holding: Dillon v Legg - The court agreed that Jennifer has a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress
Rule: The rule of law considered was that of Negligent Infliction of Mental Distress: 1) Whether plaintiff was located near the scene of the accident as contrasted with one who was a distance away from it. (2) Whether the shock resulted from a direct emotional impact upon plaintiff from the sensory and contemporaneous observance of the accident, as contrasted with learning of the accident from others after its occurrence. (3) Whether plaintiff and the victim were closely related, as contrasted with an absence of any relationship or the presence of only a distant relationship." The element before the court is whether the plaintiff and the victim were closely related as contrasted with an absence of any relationship or presence of only a distant relationship as Jennifer and Richard were not married.
Reasoning: The court was not going to enforce the Dillon rule in its strictest sense as Jennifer and Richard's plans to marry were twice frustrated due to circumstances beyond their control. Jennifer witnessed her lover being stabbed, and he died in her arms. The court ruled that it is foreseeable, as a matter of law (Hedlund v. Superior Court, that when defendant drew his knife, and stabbed Richard, that the woman a few feet distant seated in the vehicle was likely a loved one who would suffer extreme emotional distress when Richard died in her arms. A tortfeasor who acts so viciously and callously should not gain immunity merely because their marriage license was never recorded in some county recorder's office. If defendant would have been liable to her for intentionally inflicting mental distress upon a person who was known to be present, we see no reason whatever to deny recovery simply because his victim is suing for negligently inflicting mental distress. The court stated that in light of this strong public policy, it would be sheer folly to suggest that Jennifer should be held in low esteem as a victim merely because her earlier plans to marry Richard went awry. The law should find more than pity for one who is stricken by seeing that a loved one has been critically injured or killed.
Outcome: There is no outcome stated in this excerpt provided but based on the reasoning of the court, I will assume that Jennifer's appeal was granted on the issue of Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress.
Dissent: Not stated in excerpt.