Veroline v. Priority One EMS - 2009-1040 ( La. 10/09/09), 18 So. 3d 1273

Rule:

La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2315.6 requires, among other things, that a plaintiff either view the accident or come upon the accident scene soon after it has occurred and before any substantial change has taken place in the victim's condition.

Facts:

Plaintiff Joshua Paul Veroline and his sister Heather were spending time with friends at Toledo Bend Lake. Heather Veroline injured her knee when she was tossed into the air by a friend. Plaintiff witnessed the emergency medical technicians (“EMTs”) place her sister in the ambulance that was to bring her to the hospital. Joshua and two friends left for the hospital in Heather's vehicle but stopped several times on the way. Soon after, the ambulance embarked to the hospital. At some point during the twenty-mile trip to the hospital, the ambulance, with its lights on and traveling fast, passed Joshua, causing him to believe that Heather had taken a turn for the worse. Heather died before Joshua could see her. The plaintiffs filed a Petition for Damages, wherein plaintiff Joshua alleged that he was entitled to damages for emotional distress as a result of the defendants’ negligent treatment of his sister while she was in their care in the ambulance. he defendants subsequently filed a pleading titled "Peremptory Exception of No Right of Action and No Cause of Action, Alternatively Motion for Summary Judgment." The trial court sustained defendants’ Exception of No Cause of Action and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims and lawsuit with prejudice. The trial court found that plaintiff could not establish the first element of La. Civ. Code art. 2315.6. because he did not view the accident or come upon the scene soon after it occurred. The court of appeals reversed and concluded that the plaintiffs stated a cause of action under La. Civ. Code art. 2315.6. Writ of certiorari was granted.

Issue:

Under the circumstances, could plaintiff establish the first element of La. Civ. Code art. 2315.6?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The Court held that the trial court correctly determined that the plaintiff did not satisfy the first element because he could not show that he viewed the accident or came upon the scene soon after it occurred. He had not satisfied the temporal proximity requirement of art. 2315.6. He did not allege that he suffered immediate shock from witnessing a traumatic event which caused the direct victim, his sister, harm that was severe and apparent. He did not actually view the event that caused his sister's death. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court was reinstated.