California Supreme Court Expands Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Claims in Downey v. City of Riverside

In a significant decision, the California Supreme Court has broadened the scope of bystander claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED). In Downey v. City of Riverside, 14 Cal.5th 984 (2024), the Court held that a close relative who hears a loved one’s car crash over the phone can sue for NIED, even if not physically present at the scene and unaware of the defendant’s role in causing the accident.

Case Background

Plaintiff Jayde Downey was on a phone call with her daughter, providing driving directions, when she heard her daughter exclaim in fear, followed by the sounds of a devastating car crash—metal colliding, glass shattering, and tires screeching. When her daughter did not respond, Downey realized she was seriously injured. A bystander at the scene confirmed her fears by telling Downey he needed to “find a pulse.”

Downey sued the City of Riverside and adjacent property owners, alleging that negligent road conditions led to her daughter’s crash. She sought damages for the severe emotional distress she suffered from hearing the accident.

The trial court dismissed her claim, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that she failed to meet the requirements for a bystander NIED claim because she was not aware of the defendants’ negligence at the time. The Supreme Court granted review to determine whether a bystander must be aware of the defendant’s role in causing the injury to claim NIED.

Supreme Court Decision

The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the lower courts. Justice Leondra Kruger wrote that to state a bystander NIED claim, a plaintiff must:

1. Be a close relative of the victim.
2. Be present at the scene of the injury-causing event at the time it occurs and aware it is causing injury to the victim.
3. Suffer serious emotional distress beyond that of a disinterested witness.

The key issue was whether Downey’s auditory perception over the phone satisfied the “presence and awareness” requirement. The Court held that physical presence is not limited to visual sight. Hearing the event in real-time suffices if the plaintiff is contemporaneously aware that it is injuring their close relative. Crucially, the plaintiff does not need to be aware of the defendant’s negligent conduct at that moment.

Justice Kruger stated, “For purposes of clearing the awareness threshold for emotional distress recovery, it is awareness of an event that is injuring the victim—not awareness of the defendant’s role in causing the injury—that matters.”

Implications

The Downey ruling expands NIED claims in California:

• Plaintiffs who perceive an injury to a close relative through any sense may have a valid NIED claim, even if not physically present.
• Awareness of the defendant’s negligence is unnecessary at the time of the injury.
• The decision emphasizes the plaintiff’s emotional impact over knowledge of causation.

Conclusion

The California Supreme Court’s decision in Downey adapts tort law to modern communication, acknowledging that real-time perception of a loved one’s injury can occur remotely. This case will influence future NIED claims involving emotional distress experienced through technology.