 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Singh v. East Bay Regional Park District10/30/2002
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
On August 29, 1999, Nilesh Singh drowned while swimming at the Contra Loma Reservoir site, part of a park developed and operated by the East Bay Regional Park District (the District). The decedent's mother, brothers, uncles, aunt and cousins brought an action for wrongful death and for the negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) against the District. The appellants here, none of whom lived with the decedent, are an uncle, an aunt and two first cousins, who were at the park with the decedent, and allegedly witnessed his drowning and the failure of District personnel to take appropriate action to save or revive him. The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings to the District, finding that appellants were not of the class of plaintiffs entitled to recover on a theory of NIED. This appeal followed.
We will affirm.
Standard of Review
A defendant, such as the District here, is entitled to judgment on the pleadings if the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., ยง 438, subd. (c)(1)(B)(ii).) A motion for judgment on the pleadings performs the same function as a general demurrer, and hence attacks only defects disclosed on the face of the pleadings or by matters that can be judicially noticed. (Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999.) A trial court's determination of a motion for judgment on the pleadings accepts as true the factual allegations that the plaintiff makes, giving them a liberal construction. (Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Lyons (2000) 24 Cal.4th 468, 515-516.) An appellate court's consideration of the trial court's ruling involves the same acceptance and liberal construction of the factual allegations in question, and the appellate court therefore subjects the trial court's order granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings to an independent review. (Ibid.)
Bystander Claims
In Dillon v. Legg (1968) 68 Cal.2d 728, the Supreme Court held that there are some circumstances under which bystanders to an event injuring a third party may sue the allegedly negligent actor for emotional distress. The court did not attempt a precise definition of the class of persons entitled to recover as bystanders, reasoning that the question best would be decided on a case-to-case basis. It did, however, state three guidelines: "(1) Whether plaintiff was located near the scene of the accident as contrasted with one who was a distance away from it. (2) Whether the shock resulted from a direct emotional impact upon plaintiff from the sensory and contemporaneous observance of the accident, as contrasted with learning of the accident from others after its occurrence. (3) Whether plaintiff and the victim were closely related, as contrasted with an absence of any relationship or the presence of only a distant relationship." (Id. at pp. 740-741.)
The attempt to create a workable definition of the class of persons entitled to recover as bystanders through a case-by-case analysis caused "arbitrary and conflicting results and `ever widening circles of liability' " (Bird v. Saenz (2002) 28 Cal.4th 910, 915), problems the Supreme Court addressed in Elden v. Sheldon, (1988) 46 Cal.3d 267, and sought to remedy in Thing v. La Chusa (1989) 48 Cal.3d 644.
In Elden v. Sheldon, the court rejected
Page 1 2 3 4 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|