Taylor v. Honeywell International, Inc.

MEMORANDUM

This is an appeal of the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment to Honeywell on the Taylors’ claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress and loss of consortium. We reverse the district court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings.

1. Mark Taylor’s claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress is not precluded as a matter of law. California law does not require physical injury for negligent infliction of emotional distress. See Burgess v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.4th 1064 , 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 615 , 831 P.2d 1197, 1200-01 (1992) (en banc); Molten v. Kaiser Found. Hosps., 27 Cal.3d 916 , 167 Cal.Rptr. 831 , 616 P.2d 813, 821 (1980) (en banc). When there is a breach of duty, “a person who is in the path of negligent conduct and reasonably fears for his or her own safety may recover for resulting emotional distress.” In re Air Crash Disaster Near Cerritos, Cal., 973 F.2d 1490, 1493 (9th Cir.1992). The district court concluded that Honeywell owed Mark a duty, and Honeywell does not contest that conclusion on appeal. Further, the record contains evidence supporting the Taylors’ claim that Mark experienced the threat of harm as a result of…