Lawson

Introduction and Facts

In December 1993, a group of employees at a Honda dealership in Santa Ana watched a corporate jet fall out of the sky. They feared the jet would crash into them. They feared injury from the ensuing explosion.

The jet didn’t crash into them. Rather, it crashed into nearby ground. Despite their fears, the employees were among the first to arrive at the scene of the crash, to offer whatever assistance they could, and to observe the aftermath.

The employees, led by James Lawson, later sued Management Activities, Inc., and several related entities, the owners and operators of the jet, for the “serious, substantial and enduring mental anguish” occasioned by the crash. The trial court dismissed the case after it sustained a demurrer without leave to amend and Lawson and his coworkers brought this appeal.

If this court were to apply the principles articulated in Bro v. Glaser (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1398 [ 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 894 ], Justice McDaniel’s tour de force in the area of damages for emotional distress under a negligence theory (the reader should note we do not use the phrase “negligent infliction of emotional distress”), we might end this opinion…

Standard of Review

This case comes to us after the trial court sustained the defendants’ demurrers due to the plaintiffs’ failure to state a cause of action. We therefore accept the allegations of the pleadings as true. (Angie M. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1223 [ 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 197 ].)

Allegations Contained Within the Pleading

The plaintiffs’ first amended complaint alleges: “The events giving rise to this cause of action occurred . . . when a Westwind Jet crashed while approaching for landing . . . . [f] . . . Plaintiffs . . . were at the time . . . employed by . . . a car dealership . . . . [H] . . . and . . . present [there when they] . . . ffl] . . . observed the . . . Jet begin to descend, falling out of the sky. The plaintiffs watched the Westwind Jet crash into the ground. Prior to the. . . crash[], the plaintiffs were fearful. . .the. . . Jet, or parts of it, would land on them and cause them serious injury. [^] . . . Plaintiffs watched the . . . Jet explode and, in fact, felt the force and heat of the explosion, the force of which caused them to be thrown forward as they ran from the scene of the crash. The plaintiffs also feared that they might be…

In December 1993, a group of employees at a Honda dealership in Santa Ana watched a corporate jet fall out of the sky. They feared the jet would crash into them. They feared injury from the ensuing explosion.

The jet didn't crash into them. Rather, it crashed into nearby ground. Despite their fears, the employees were among the first to arrive at the scene of the crash, to offer whatever assistance they could, and to observe the aftermath.

The employees, led by James Lawson, later sued Management Activities, Inc., and several related entities, the owners and operators of the jet, for the "serious, substantial and enduring mental anguish" occasioned by the crash. The trial court dismissed the case after it sustained a demurrer without leave to amend and Lawson and his coworkers brought this appeal. [1]

If this court were to apply the principles articulated in Bro v. Glaser (1994) 22 Cal. App.4th 1398 , 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 894 , Justice McDaniel's tour de force in the area of damages for emotional distress under a. negligence theory (the reader should note we do not use the phrase "negligent infliction of emotional distress"), we might end this opinion right here with a…