Cameron v. Pepin

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that no bystander liability will lie where the parent did not observe the defendant’s negligence
• holding that no bystander liability will lie where the parent did not observe the defendant's negligence
• holding that parents who were not at scene of son’s car accident but who later witnessed his pain and suffering at the hospital cannot recover damages for NIED from negligent tortfeasor
• holding that a plaintiff must allege that the defendant was negligent, the plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress as a result of that negligence, and the emotional distress was a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant's negligence
• rejecting a pure foreseeability test and explaining that circumscribed duty of care in the context of claims made by bystanders for psychic injury reflects policy considerations
• finding no liability for negligent infliction of emotional distress where there is no duty

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).