Search for: "Thing v. La Chusa (1989)" Results 1 - 5 of 5
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Aug 2007, 3:03 pm
La Chusa (1989) 48 Cal.3d 644, 667 (Thing), the Supreme Court held only "closely related percipient witnesses" may seek damages for emotional distress caused by observing the negligently inflicted injury of a third person and specificallylimited recovery to a plaintiff who "is present at the scene of the injury-producing event at the time it occurs and is then aware that it is causing injury to the victim. [read post]
13 Jul 2013, 10:38 am by Glotzer & Sweat
La Chusa (1989) 48 Cal.3d 644, which further defined how close to the accident scene the person needs to be to make this claim. [read post]