Amaya v. Home Ice, Fuel & Supply Co. - 59 Cal. 2d 295, 29 Cal. Rptr. 33, 379 P.2d 513 (1963)

Rule:

An actor that is merely negligent is not liable to one who claims injury through fright or shock induced by conduct directed not to the latter but to a third person.

Facts:

Plaintiff Lillian Amaya brought an action for personal injuries sustained as a result of emotional shock induced by watching the defendant driver negligently strike and run over her infant son with a truck. According to the plaintiff, all the fright and shock she suffered was as a result of her fear for the safety of her child, and not out of fear for her own safety. The defendant driver filed a general demurrer to plaintiff’s complaint after plaintiff had declined an opportunity to amend. The trial court sustained the defendant driver’s demurrer and entered a dismissal. Plaintiff challenged the decision.

Issue:

May tort liability be predicated on fright or nervous shock (with consequent bodily illness) induced solely by the plaintiff's apprehension of negligently caused danger or injury to a third person?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court noted that the current law, as stated by an appeals court, was that an actor that was merely negligent was not liable to one that claimed injury through fright or shock induced by conduct directed not to the latter but to a third person. The court noted that it had denied a hearing in that case, so its judgment stood as a decision of a court of last resort in the state. The court found that the legislature had adopted no statute inconsistent with the common law rule of nonliability. The court concluded that the social utility of human activities outweighed the somewhat speculative interest of individuals to be free from the risk of the type of injury alleged. The court concluded that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.