Bird v. Saenz Cal. 2002 Facts: Plaintiffs are the adult daughters of Nita Bird. Nita was in the hospital for an operation which was to take 20 min. The goal was to insert a catheter which was to facilitate the delivery of chemotherapeutic agents. After an hour had elapsed Janice asked a hospital volunteer to see what was taking so long. Then over the loud speaker she heard “thoracic surgeon needed in surgery, stat.” Janice assumed the call related to Nita. An hour later the defendant came to the waiting room and told Janice that they had more trouble than expected and they think she had a stroke. Janice then phoned Dayle with the news. Soon after Janice saw Nita being rushed down the hall to the critical care unit, she looked blue and the angle of the bed was such that her head was at the ground. Soon thereafter Dr. Dowds said “I think they nicked an artery or a vein, and it looks like all the blood went into her chest.” Soon after Dayle arrived and the events went on for a couple more hours with Nita being rushed from one room to the next with a bunch of doctors following her. This was the claim for NEID. A plaintiff may recover damages for NEID to a third party if and only if, the plaintiff (1) is closely related to the injury victim; (2) is present at the scene of the injury-producing event at the time it occurs and is then aware that it is causing injury to the victim; and (3) as a result suffers serious emotional distress-a reaction beyond that which would be anticipated in a disinterested witness and which is not an abnormal response to the circumstances. No award in this case because plaintiffs could not satisfy item (2). The plaintiffs were not present at the injury producing event, namely they were not in the room when the artery was nicked. They heard about the event later on which does not satisfy item (2). Plaintiffs cited two cases, Nazaroff v. Superior Court and Archibald v. Braverman. In these two cases the plaintiffs had seen the immediate aftereffects of injury-producing events, but not he events themselves.
Rule:
Holding:
Fife v. Astenius Cal. 4th Dist. 1991 Facts: Meghan Fife was in a truck which got into an accident right outside her house. Her parents and brother was in the house and heard the accident. They did not know she was involved but ran out to see what had happened. They got to the scene of the accident just seconds after the accident took place, at that time they realized Meghan was injured.
Rule:
A plaintiff must contemporaneously perceive the injury producing event and its traumatic consequences. No award in this case because the plaintiffs did not satisfy item (2), because they did not know Meghan was involved in the accident at the time they hear the collision. They did site to the case Krouse v. Graham (1977) where the Supreme Court held sensory perception of an accident could be sufficient to establish a plaintiff’s presence at the scene, “visual” perception was not required.
Holding:
Wilks v. Hom Cal. 4th Dist. 1992 Facts: Wilks and her 3 daughters lived in a residence they rented from Hom. Wilks was vacuuming in the living room but the chord was plugged in the socket in Virginia’s (daughter) bedroom. After she finished vacuuming she called out for Virginia to unplug the chord. As Virginia pulled the plug there was an immediate explosion. The explosion blew Wilks and daughter out of the house. She went back in to get Virginia. The court awarded her NIED for all victims. recovery must be limited to “plaintiffs who personally and contemporaneously perceive the injury-producing event and its traumatic consequences. In this case damages were awarded because Mom was aware of daughters position and contemporaneously perceived the injury to her daughter.
Rule:
Holding: