Bovsun Case Brief PDF

Preview

Summary

2020 Torts Law I Case Brief - Bovsun Case (famous)...

Description

Bovsun v. Sanperi Court of Appeals of New York, 1984

PH: At trial jurors were selected the defendant’s attorney objected to any reference being made to emotional distress plaintiffs might have suffered as a result of observing jack’s injuries. Trial court ruled that the proof would be limited to plaintiff’s own direct physical injuries and that no mention could be made during the voir dire of any injuries attributable to emotional distress. On plaintiff’s appeal the appellate division affirmed. Plaintiff appealed again. FACTS: Father, mother, and daughter commenced an action for personal injuries sustained by them in a 2 car collision. Father, who had been driving the station wagon in which his wife and daughter were passengers. Father settled before trial and the mother and daughter are now appellant plaintiffs before us. May 24, 1975 due to mechanical difficulties had stopped at the side of the Southern State Parkway in Nassau County. The father went around to the rear and leaned inside the open tailgate window. The car was struck in the rear by an automobile owned by defendant Rosario Sanperi and driven by D Gary T. Sanperi. Jack was seriously injured when he was pinned bt the 2 cars. The mother and daughter were thrown about the station wagon by the force of the impact but suffered less serious physical injuries than Jack. The mother and daughter never saw the car strike the station wagon but both were aware of the impact and the fact that Jack must have been injured and each thereafter immediately observed their seriously injured husband and father. ISSUE: whether in addition to or apart from other damages to which a plaintiff may be entitled in consequence of the negligence of the defendant, he may recover for emotional distress occasioned by his witnessing injury or death caused by the defendants conduct to a member of the plaintiff’s immediate family? HOLDING: Appellate Division should be reversed with costs defendants motion to dismissed denied and causes of action dismissed reinstated. REASON:  

   

Both are brought within the zone of danger rule due to unreasonable risk of bodily injury by negligent conduct on the part of defendants. The seriously injured person was an immediate family of plaintiff each of whom alleges serious emotional trauma as a result of observing the injury of death Although they didn’t actually see it they had an instantaneous awareness that he had been injured as well as their observation of him immediately after he was hit Both can recover for emotional distress damages Foreseeability is not the sole test of whether a legally cognizable duty is owed The zone of danger rule which allows one who is himself or herself threatened with bodily harm in consequence of the defendants negligence to recover for emotional distress resulting from viewing the death or serious physical injury



of a member of his or her immediate family is said to have become the majority rule in the country Use the objective test of whether the plaintiff was unreasonably threated with bodily harm by the conduct of the defendant

RULE OF LAW: can now recover for emotional distress even though did not witness the exact accident which caused the serious injury of an immediate family member....