The California Supreme Court announced July 21 that it accepted a Riverside damages case.
An appellate ruling had established that a person did not need to be physically present at the scene of an accident to bring a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress as a bystander. If the person was sufficiently there due to remote technology, such as phone calls, they could have standing to sue.
After a traffic collision, a suit in Riverside Superior Court was brought against the city of Riverside, driver Evan Martin and Ara and Vahram Sevacherian, the owners of a property with landscaping that the plaintiff claimed blocked drivers’ view and was responsible for the crash.
Greg Rizio and Eric Ryanen of the Rizio Lipinsky Law Firm represented the plaintiffs, Malyah Jane Vance and Jayde Downey.
City Attorney Phaedra Norton, Senior Deputy City Attorney Michel Verska and Deputy City Attorney Cecilia Rojas represented Riverside.
Gary Klein and Shelby Kennick of CP Law Group represented the Sevacherians.
Riverside Superior Judge Harold Hopp dismissed the allegations against the Sevacherians and Riverside Sept. 24, 2021, without granting Vance and Downey leave to amend their complaint.
The Court of Appeal said that recent advancements in technology—such as phone calls and livestreaming—allow family members to qualify for the second requirement even if they were not physically at the scene.
Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division One, Associate Justices Terry B. O’Rourke and Judith McConnell wrote the majority opinion in the appellate ruling. Justice Will Dato wrote the minority opinion.
Read our coverage here.
Read the complaint here.
Read Hopp’s dismissal here.
Read the appellate ruling here.
Riverside Case No. RIC1905830
Appellate Case No. D080377
California Supreme Court Case No. S280322
