This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...

Torts/Personal Injury

Sep. 10, 2024

Ring, ring, ring... The latest update to NIED is here

The California Supreme Court has broadened negligent infliction of emotional distress claims to include plaintiffs who were not physically present at the injury scene. This expansion could lead to more NIED claims.

Jonathan Davidi

Attorney, Panish, Shea, Boyle & Ravipudi LLP

Shutterstock

The California Supreme Court recently clarified the scope and extent of a plaintiff's ability to claim negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) as a bystander. Pursuant to the holding in Downey v. City of Riverside (2024) __ Cal.5th __, a bystander plaintiff does not need to know that their relative's injury was caused by the negligence of the defendant in order to recover damages for NIED.

Since the Supreme Court's seminal 1968 ruling in Dillon v...

To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!

Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)

Already a subscriber?

Sign up for Daily Journal emails