Thing v. La Chusa
California state legal decision on emotional distress / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Thing v. La Chusa?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
SHOW ALL QUESTIONS
Thing v. La Chusa, 48 Cal. 3d 644 (1989), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of California that limited the scope of the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress. The majority opinion was authored by Associate Justice David Eagleson, and it is regarded as his single most famous opinion and representative of his conservative judicial philosophy.[1]
Quick Facts Thing v. La Chusa, Decided April 27, 1989 ...
Thing v. La Chusa | |
---|---|
Decided April 27, 1989 | |
Full case name | Maria E. Thing v. James V. La Chusa |
Citation(s) | 48 Cal.3d 644 771 P.2d 814 257 Cal.Rptr. 865 57 USLW 2671 |
Case history | |
Prior history | 233 Cal.Rptr. 911 (1987) (reversed) |
Holding | |
A bystander can only recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress if they are closely related to the victim, are present and aware of the injury, and suffer emotional distress as a result. | |
Court membership | |
Chief Justice | Malcolm M. Lucas |
Associate Justices | Allen Broussard, Edward A. Panelli, Stanley Mosk, David Eagleson, John Arguelles, Marcus Kaufman, |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Eagleson, joined by Lucas, Panelli, Arguelles |
Concurrence | Kaufman |
Dissent | Mosk |
Dissent | Broussard |
Close