Dillon v Legg is an emotional distress claim. The claim is on or about September 27th, 1964: the defendant David Luther Legg was driving his automobile in a southern direction on Bluegrass Road, close to an intersection called Clover lane in the county of Sacramento. On this same date the plaintiff Margery M. Dillon’s’ daughter Erin Lee Dillon, who is of young age was lawfully crossing Bluegrass Road. The Defendant then hit the plaintiff’s daughter Erin resulting in injuries so severe it resulted in her death. The first complaint was: the defendant should be held liable for compensation for the plaintiff’s loss. The plaintiffs second cause of action was: the defendant is liable for injuries due to negligence. Being the cause of said injuries …show more content…
After hearing the first, second, and third cause of actions the court granted judgment on the pleadings of the second cause of action against the mother, and denied it as to the sister’s behalf, the third cause of action. The court further dismissed the second cause of action as well. Margery M. Dillon then appealed from that judgement. However, on January 26th further proceedings were put into place on accounts of the third action of Cheryl Dillon. The defendant in opposition contended again that Cheryl Dillon was not in the zone of danger of the incident, and therefor had no fear of her own safety. The court using a reaction of authoritative reasoning of previous established law came to a conclusion regarding the third action.
The reason the courts chose the case of Amaya V. Home, Ice, Fuel, and Supply Company was obviously similarity of the two cases. The case Amaya V. Home ruled fright and nervous shock can cause bodily harm to a third person or person, but only if so if the person is in the zone of danger causing fear for one’s own life. This would mean the court would grant the motion of judgement for the sister, but not the mother because, the plaintiff testified she was not within the zone of danger contrasting the sister who …show more content…
The specific duty the court questions is: Does the defendant owe duty to the plaintiff in regards to emotional, and physical injury? In order to limit infinite liability that would follow every negligent act the courts found it in the law of torts that the defendant holds amenability only for injuries of the plaintiffs of foreseeability. The courts came to the conclusion of foressablity as a duty’s or obligation that must be adjudicated upon in this case. The court then expanded duties must be adjudicated on a case by case basis. This relates to policy reasoning by adjudicating duties it will not only expand what duty can or cannot be but also create fair trails, and by allowing foreseeability as a duty in this case and makes it a fair trial. Next, the court decided they must determine several factors of who is to blame by including these questions which related to the civic duty of foreseeability: 1. “Whether the plaintiff was located near the scene of the accident. 2. Whether the shock resulted from a direct emotional impact of the defendant. 3.Whether the plaintiff and the victim were closely related or had any distant relationship. (Page 6, 3rd paragraph.) The court determined the evaluation of these factors would determine the defendant’s liability for the plaintiff regarding the