Lejeune v. Rayne Branch Hosp. - 556 So. 2d 559 (La. 1990)

Rule:

Mental pain and anguish claims arising out of injury to third persons are allowable, with these restrictions: 1. A claimant need not be physically injured in the same accident in order to be awarded mental pain and anguish damages arising out of injury to another, nor need he be in the zone of danger to which the directly injured party is exposed. He must either view the accident or injury-causing event or come upon the accident scene soon thereafter and before substantial change has occurred in the victim's condition. 2. The direct victim of the traumatic injury must suffer such harm that it can reasonably be expected that one in the plaintiff's position would suffer serious mental anguish. 3. The emotional distress sustained must be both serious and reasonably foreseeable to allow recovery. Compensation for mental pain and anguish over injury to a third person should only be allowed where the emotional injury is both severe and debilitating. 4. These damages are allowed for claimants having a close relationship with the victim.

Facts:

Plaintiff Mabel Lejeune’s comatose husband was a patient at Defendant Rayne Branch Hospital. Plaintiff claimed that her husband has suffered multiple rat bites on his body because of the negligence of hospital personnel, and the hospital's failure to perform its contractual obligation to provide a proper facility and clean environment. Plaintiff filed an action to recover, among other claims, for her own mental pain and anguish damages. The district court ruled that plaintiff has stated a cause of action, and refused to dismiss the action. Defendant appealed. 

Issue:

Did the plaintiff wife state a cause of action for mental pain and anguish damages resulting from a series of rat bites to her hospitalized comatose husband? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the judgment refusing to dismiss the wife's claim for mental pain and anguish damages. The court held that all claims for mental anguish damages were not barred and established a four-part test to state a claim for mental anguish damages: (1) A claimant had to either view the accident or injury-causing event, or come upon the accident scene soon thereafter and before substantial change has occurred in the victim's condition; (2) the direct victim of the traumatic injury had to suffer such harm that it could reasonably be expected that one in the plaintiff's position would suffer serious mental anguish from the experience; (3) the emotional distress sustained had to be both serious and reasonably foreseeable to allow recovery and compensation for mental pain, and anguish over injury to a third person would only be allowed where the emotional injury was both severe and debilitating; and (4) claimants had to have a close relationship with the victim. Under this test, the court found that the plaintiff wife had stated a cause of action.