Fife

Fife v. Astenius

Good Law
1991 Cal. App. LEXIS 885·232 Cal. App. 3d 1090·284 Cal. Rptr. 16·91 Daily Journal DAR 9580·91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6134
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 29, 1991G010192California918 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sonenshine, J.

—The parents and brothers of Meghan K. Fife

appeal a summary judgment granted to Jennifer Astenius. The Fifes are seeking recovery for the alleged negligent infliction of emotional distress (hereafter NIED) caused when they heard a car crash and went to the street to discover Meghan had been injured. The Supreme Court’s guidelines for recovery in Thing v. La Chusa (1989) 48 Cal.3d 644 [ 257 Cal.Rptr. 865 , 771 P.2d 814 ] require a plaintiff’s presence at the accident scene and an awareness that a relative is then being injured. The Fifes allege their perceptions of the accident and Meghan’s injuries were contemporaneous, within the La Chusa guidelines. We conclude they cannot recover for NEED because they did not know at the time the accident occurred that Meghan was being injured.

I

Meghan was injured when the truck in which she was a passenger collided with another car. The accident occurred on the street directly behind Meghan’s house. Her parents and three brothers, who were in the house at the time, heard the crash and saw debris fly above a wall which separated their yard from the street. Although none of the family members saw the accident, Meghan’s father and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.