law-bystander-claim | IIED intentional infliction of emotional harm and suffering | wrongful death statute
BYSTANDER CLAIMS | EMOTIONAL ANGUISH & DISTRESS CLAIMS
A bystander claim falls within an exception to the general rule barring recovery for negligent infliction of
emotional distress. Id. at 398. Under this legal theory, mental anguish damages are recoverable for the
contemporaneous sensory perception of a serious or fatal injury to a close relative. Id. To recover as a
bystander, a plaintiff must establish that she (1) was located near the scene of the accident, as contrasted with
one who was a distance away from it; (2) suffered shock as a result of direct emotional impact upon the plaintiff
from a sensory and contemporaneous observance of the accident, as contrasted with learning of the accident
from others after its occurrence; and (3) was closely related to the primary victim of the accident. United
Services Automobile Association v. Keith, 970 S.W.2d 540, 541-42 (Tex. 1998).
Godfrey v. BP Products North America (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 25, 2009)
(refinery explosion siblings cannot recover under wrongful death act, no recovery as bystanders either as they
did not witness the calamity, negligent infliction of emotional distress generally not actionable, IIED cause of
action)
AFFIRMED: Opinion by Justice Anderson
Before Justices Anderson, Frost and Guzman
14-08-00857-CV Leah Godfrey and Cheri Merritt v. BP Products North America
Appeal from 212th District Court of Galveston County
Trial Court Judge: Susan Elizabeth Criss
In their second issue on appeal, appellants contend the trial court erred when it granted appellee's motion for
summary judgment on appellants' bystander claim. We disagree.
The evidence was undisputed that appellants were not at or near the Texas City refinery at the time of the
explosion. The evidence was also undisputed that appellants did not contemporaneously perceive their sister's
injury as it happened or immediately afterward. Finally, the evidence was undisputed that appellants learned of
the explosion from others. As appellants did not meet the first two requirements to recover on a bystander
claim, the trial court did not err when it granted appellee's motion for summary judgment on that cause of
action. See Chapa, 267 S.W.3d at 398-400. We overrule appellants' second issue.
Jones v. City of Houston (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 27, 2009)(Jennings)
(TTCA, drowning death of child, uncovered culvert, siblings' bystander claim rejected) ("we hold that the City's
summary judgment evidence established as a matter of law that the Jones siblings could not recover as
bystanders for any mental anguish and emotional trauma caused by their brother's drowning. Thus, we further
hold that the trial court did not err in granting the City summary judgment on the bystander claims of the Jones
siblings.") (TTCA, drowning death of child, uncovered culvert, siblings' bystander claim for wrongful death of
brother rejected, drowning deaths)
AFFIRM TC JUDGMENT: Opinion by Justice Jennings
Before Justices Jennings, Alcala and Higley
01-08-00905-CV Landon Jones and Loren Jones v. City of Houston
Appeal from 215th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Levi J. Benton
Dissenting Opinion by Justice Alcala in Jones v. City of Houston