Lp Wiiting

Piof. Bill

Wilks v. Hom, Cal. Rptr. d 8, 8 {Ct. App. 99].
Key Procedural History Facts: Paients fileu action against lanuloiu foi wiongful
ueath of chilu anu foi uamages anu peisonal injuiies causeu by explosion anu fiie.
The Supeiioi Couit of San Biego County, No. 9, Anthony C. }oseph, }., founu foi
plaintiffs, anu lanuloiu appealeu. The Couit of Appeal, Fioehlich, }., helu that the
mothei of chilu injuieu in explosion coulu ieceive uamages foi bystanuei emotional
uistiess occasioneu wheie mothei was contempoianeously awaie that the
explosion was causing the injuiies, even though she uiu not actually see oi heai hei
uaughtei being injuieu; mothei was piesent at the scene of explosion, anu instantly
knoew of likely seveie uamage to chilu
Facts: Kimbeily Wilks Responuant, anu hei thiee uaughteis ienteu a place fiom
ueoige Bom, Tom Bom, Beibeit Bom, anu Campo Lake Piopeities appellants. R hau
been living at the iesiuence foi about months. 0n 0ctobei , 98, Wilks's
boyfiienu Aithui Ayies hookeu up the house's existing piopane system, to a
piopane stove. The system hau not been in use piioi to this time. Ayies then left
the home to iun an eiianu. Wilks anu hei thiee yeai olu uaughtei }anelle weie in
the living ioom vacuuming. Wilks's othei two uaughteis }essica 9 anu viiginia
weie in theii own beuiooms. When Wilks finisheu vacuuming she instiucteu
viiginia to unplug the vacuum cleanei. Immeuiately she unpluggeu the vacuum
theie was an explosion. Wilks anu }anelle weie thiown fiom the house. Wilks
attempteu to ietuin to the living ioom but coulun't get past the extieme heat, Wilks
then went aiounu the siue of the house anu bioke uown the uooi to }essica's ioom
anu pulleu hei out. Wilks then went to viiginia's ioom anu pulleu hei fiom the
house. viiginia uieu fiom hei injuiies houis latei anu }essica suiviveu but was
seveiely buineu.
Wilks came as an inuiviuual anu as a guaiuian au litem foi }anelle anu }essica, anu
Steven Bonnelly, viiginia's fathei biinging a cause of action against appellants foi
the wiongful ueath of viiginia anu foi uamages foi peisonal injuiies to }anelle,
}essica anu Wilks. A juiy founu that appellants, Ayies anu Wilks hau been negligent.
That Wilks's negligence was not a legal cause of uamage to the plaintiffs. That
Ayies's negligence was % iesponsible anu that appellants' negligence was 8%
iesponsible. The juugement allocateu to appellants 8% of the noneconomic
uamages anu awiueu uamages to plaintiffs. viigina's heiis, ,9.8. Wilks
8,.9, }esica, ,8,8.; anu }anelle, ,..
Key @ Allegations: Plaintiff contenus she contempoianeously peiceiveu the injuiy
piouucing event anu its tiaumatic consequences.
Key A Allegations: Appellants claim the couit eiieu in instiucting the juiy
iegaiuing iecoveiy foi emotional uistiess uamages by a bystanuei, in instiucting
the juiy on negligence pei se anu in eiioneously iefusing to give special instiuctions
iegaiuing lanuloiu liability. Appellants also contenu it was eiioi foi the couit to
allow giaphic testimony about viiginia's anu }essica's injuiies. Appellants furtber
assert tbe trial court erred in instructing tbe |ury on liability to a bystander
wbo observes a negligently caused in|ury to a love one.
Issue: Whethei a plaintiff-bystanuei has to actually witness injuiy piouucing event
to victim.
Rule of Law: A plaintiff may iecovei uamages foi emotional uistiess causeu by
obseiving the negligently inflicteu injuiy of a thiiu peison if, but only if, saiu
plaintiff: () is closely ielateu to the injuiy victim; {] is present at tbe scene of
tbe in|ury-producing event at tbe time it occurs and is tben aware tbat it is
causing in|ury to tbe victim, anu () as a iesult suffeis seiious emotional uistiess-
a ieaction beyonu that which woulu be anticipateu in a uisinteiesteu witness anu
which is not an abnoimal iesponse to the ciicumstances.
Holding: No, it is not necessaiy that a plaintiff bystanuei actually have witnesseu
the infliction of injuiy to hei chilu, pioviueu that the plaintiff was at the scene of the
acciuent anu was sensoiially awaie, in some impoitant way, of the acciuent anu the
necessaiily inflicteu injuiy to hei chilu.
Reasoning: The couit heavily ielieu on the iuling out of the thing couit which
ieconcileu similai cases uealing with the issue. The Thing couit ueteimineu
iecoveiy must be limiteu "to plaintiffs who peisonally anu contempoianeously
peiceive the injuiy-piouucing event anu its tiaumatic consequences. The Thing
couit affiimeu that bystanuei uamages may be iecoveieu only by a plaintiff who is
piesent at the injuiy-piouucing event at the time it occuis anu is then awaie that it
is causing injuiy to the victim. The couit's analysis uiu not inuicate uisappioval,
howevei, of the holuing in Kiouse that the plaintiff neeu not visually peiceive the
injuiy while it is being inflicteu.