Rodriguez

Rodriguez v. Kirchhoefel

Good Law
128 Cal. App. 4th 427·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 576·2005 Daily Journal DAR 4232·26 Cal. Rptr. 3d 891·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3134
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 13, 2005No. B175505California1,841 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Mosk, J.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff and appellant Martha Rodriguez (plaintiff) sued defendant and respondent Troy Kirchhoefel (defendant) for negligent infliction of emotional *430 distress (NIED), alleging that plaintiff suffered emotional distress when she observed a car, negligently driven by defendant, strike and kill Catalina Macias (Macias). Defendant successfully moved for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff was not related to Macias, and therefore, under Thing v. La Chusa (1989) 48 Cal.3d 644 [ 257 Cal.Rptr. 865 , 771 P.2d 814 ] (Thing) and Elden v. Sheldon (1988) 46 Cal.3d 267 [ 250 Cal.Rptr. 254 , 758 P.2d 582 ] (Elden), plaintiff cannot assert an NIED claim against defendant. Plaintiff appeals from the summary judgment, contending the trial court erred by granting summary judgment because there was evidence that plaintiff and Macias, although not related by blood, had a relationship similar to that of sisters. Because the Supreme Court in Thing and Elden made clear that the NIED cause of action is not available to plaintiffs who observe injuries negligently inflicted on de facto relatives, as opposed to blood or marital relatives, we affirm the…

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.