Plaintiffs alleging infliction of emotional distress do not have to be present at the scene of accidents, the California Court of Appeal ruled April 26.
Instead, plaintiffs could have experienced the accident virtually, through a phone call.
In a dissenting opinion, Judge William Dato said the appellate ruling also adopted a rule that goes against Supreme Court precedent, references improper precedent and unnecessarily burdens plaintiffs.
The ruling bridges the gap between conflicting precedent regarding claims of negligent infliction of emotional distress, said Greg Rizio of Rizio Lipinsky, the plaintiff’s attorney.
The differences in standards comes from different lines of standards between medical malpractice cases and personal
