I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 3 - I A- 0 1 2 9 1 - S CT ENTER GY M

I S S I S S I PP I , I NC. v. M ARY BE THANNE ACEY D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 07/ 17/ 2013 TRI AL J UDG E: HON . J OHN NI E E . W ALL S , J R. T RI AL CO UR T AT T OR NE YS : J OHN H. DUNB AR JA M E S W . S N ID E R , JR F RED M . RI DOLP HI , J R. COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: TUNI CA COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATT ORNEYS F OR APP EL LANT: J OHN H. DUN BAR J AM ES W . S NI DER, J R. A T T O R N E Y S F O R A P P E L L E E : C H A R L E S B U C K L E Y G R A V E S , J R . F RED M . RI DOLP HI , J R. NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - P ERS ONA L I NJ URY D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D - 10/ 23/ 2014 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. PI ERCE, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1 . O n e a fte rn o o n in T u n ica C o u n ty , M iss iss ip p i, A .A ., a m in o r, w a s e lec tro c u ted w h ile pl ay i ng on the f

a r ml a nd of

D a vi d a nd She rry M e l t on . Ri l e y Berry, w ho w orke d f ort he M el t on s , h a d pa r ke d a c ott on p i c ke ru nd e ra n a l l e ge dl y s a gg i ng p owerl i ne , whi c h w as ow ned b y E nter gy M i ssi ssi pp i , Inc. U l t i m at el y, A . A . cl i m bed on t o the cot t on pi cker , t ouched the p o w er li n e, an d w as e lectroc u ted. B erry ’s de p o sit ion pro v ides that h e a n d h is son s w ere unaw ar e thatA . A . and the M el t ons ’ daught erw er e pl ayi ng nearby. O ne of B erry’ s s ons s aw

### 2

a fl ash out of the corner of hi s eye, w hil e the m en w ere w orki ng on theirvehicl es. B erry s t a t e d th a tth e y i mm e d i a t e l y b e g a n ru n n i n g i n th e d i r e c t i o n o f t h e f l a s h a n d d i s c o v e r e d A. A. on t op of the cot t on pi cker . B err y’ s son w as abl e t o m ove A . A . and hand hert o B erry, w ho h e ld A .A . u n til e m e rg e n c y m e d ic a l r e s p o n d e rs a rr iv e d . ¶ 2 . A t th e tim e o f th e a c c id e n t, A .A .’s m o th e r, M a ry B e th a n n e A c e y , w a s e n ro u te to M oon L ake, i n Coahom a C ount y, M i s s i s s i ppi , w i th he rs on and C har l es G r aves . A T uni ca C o u n ty 9 1 1 d isp a tch e r c a lle d G ra v e s to in fo rm h im o f th e a c c id e n t. G ra v e s im m e d iate ly turn ed the c ar a rou n d to pro ce ed t o th e M elt o n s’ ho m e. A ce y then sp o k e w ith the d ispa tche r, w ho exp l a i ne d the gr a vi ty o f the s i tua t i on t o Ace y a nd i nf ormed h e rtha tA . A . ha d be en “sh o ck ed . ” A ce y arri v ed at the a cc iden t sce n e an d saw he r dau g h ter in B erry ’s arm s. A ce y ’s af f i davi texpl ai ns thatshe obs erved s m oke comi ng f r om herdaught er ’ s s ki n, s ki n f l aki ng and turni ng gr ay, f

i nger s m i s s i ng and bones e xpos ed, and s he coul d s m el l the odorof burni ng fl e s h . ¶3. E m er gency m edi cal r es ponder s arr i ved s hor t l y af t er A cey’ s arr i val. A . A . s uf f er ed s ever e burns t o both of

herarm s and herhi p. A . A . s ubs equent l y w as ai r l i f t ed t o L e B onheur C h ild re n ’s H o sp ital in M e m p h is, T e n n e ss e e , an d w a s la ter tra n sfe rre d to S h rin e rs H o sp itals fo r C h ild re n in C in c in n a ti, O h io , w h ic h s p e c ia liz e s in tr e a tin g b u rn p a tie n ts . ¶4. T hereaft er, A cey co m m enced l egal act i on on beh al f of A . A . , and i nd i vidual l y, against E nt er gy, D avi d and Sherr y M el t on, M el t on Far m s , M ary M ac, I nc. , and N or f l eet I nves t m ent s , L P ( “D ef

endant s ”) . D ef

endant s s ett l ed al l cl ai m s on behal f of A . A . R egar di ng A ce y ’s i n d ividu al by stan d er c lai m s for e m o tion al distr ess, E n tergy m o v ed for su m m ary j udgm entand m oved t o str i ke the af f i davi t s of

A cey a nd D r . W i l l i am H i cker s on. T he tr i al

### 3

courts ubs equent l y deni ed eac h m ot i on. A ccor di ng t o the tr i al court , bas ed on the natur e of A . A . ’ s i nj ur i es , thi s cas e “c r i es outf orthe expa ns i on of

” t he f act or s pr ovi ded by the C al i f orni a Supr eme C our ti n “ D il lon [ v. L egg , 68 C al . 2d 728, 740- 41, 69 C al . R ptr . 72, 81, 441 P. 2d 912, 920 ( C al . 1968) ] , a dopt ed by thi s Courti n E n tex, Inc. v. McG u ire , 414 So. 2 d 4 3 7 , 4 4 4 (M iss . 1 9 8 2 ). T h e re a fte r, E n te rg y w a s g ra n ted in ter lo c u to ry a p p e a l b y th is C ou rton the fol l ow i ng i ssues: I . W het her t he t ri al court err ed i n denyi ng E nt ergy’ s M ot i on f or Sum m ary Jud gm ent on P l ai nt i f f’ s byst ander cl ai m f

or em ot i onal d i st ress. I I . W h ether t h e t ri al cou rt erred i n den ying E n ter g y ’s M o ti o n to St r i ke t he A f

f i dav i t of D r . W i l l i am H i c ke r s on. III . W h eth er th e tr ial c o u r t e r r e d in d e n y in g E n ter g y ’s M o ti o n to St ri ke t he A f

f i davi t of M ary B et hann e A cey . ¶5. B eca us e t hi s C ourt fi nds that E nt er gy’ s m ot i on f or s um m ary j udgm ent s houl d have b e e n g ra n te d , w e w ill d is c u s s th e m e ri ts o f o n ly Is s u e I. S T A N D A R D O F R E V I E W ¶6 . W e rev iew the d en ial o f sum m ary jud g m en t de n o v o an d co n side r all ev iden ce b efo re th is C o u rt . Moo re ex rel . Moo re v. Mem ’l

Hosp. of G u l

fport , 82 5 S o. 2d 65 8 , 66 3 (M i ss. 2 0 0 2 ). T h e ev id e n c e is ex a m in e d in th e li g h t m o st fa v o ra b le to the n o n m o v in g p a rty . Id . T h e m o v a n t i s e n tit led to ju d g m e n t as a m a tter o f law , h a v in g su m m a ry ju d g m e n t en ter e d in its fa v o r, i f t h e re is n o g e n u in e is s u e o f m a te ri a l f a c t. Id . A N A LY SI S I . W het her the t ri al court err ed i n denyi ng E nt ergy’ s M ot i on f or Sum m ary Judgm ent on P l ai nt i f f’ s byst ander cl ai m f

or em ot i on al d i st ress .

### 4

¶ 7 . A s b o th p a rties p o in t o u t, A c e y ’s b y sta n d e r c laim fo r e m o tio n a l d istre ss is su b jec t to the t es tprovi ded by thi s C our ti n E ntex , w her e thi s Courta dopt ed the t es tes t abl i s hed by the C al i f orni a Supr eme C our ti n D il lon. E ntex , 4 1 4 S o . 2 d a t 4 4 4 . D il lon i s the sem i nal cas e w hi ch i ns t i tut ed the byst andertheory of r ecove ry, by al l ow i ng a pl ai nt i f f t o r ecove rf

or e m o tio n a l d istre ss a fte r w itn e ss in g h e r ch ild ’s d e a th , b a se d o n the th e o ry th a t li a b ili ty sh o u ld turn noton the r i sk o f phys i cal i nj ury t o the pl ai nt i f f ( the “i m pactdoctr i ne”) , buton fo re s e e a b ility o f e m o tio n a l h a rm to th e m o th e r. D il lon , 4 4 1 P .2 d a t 9 2 0 . ¶8 . B ri efly, by w ay o f ba ck g rou n d , co u rt s o ri g inally w ere reluc tant to allow an y rec o v ery fo r in tan g ib le h a rm s s u c h a s fr ig h t o r e m o tio n a l d istre ss re su lti n g fro m n e g lig e n t co n d u c t. See P ro s s e r a n d K e e to n , T h e L a w o f T o rts § 5 4 , 3 6 0 (5th ed . 1 9 8 4 ). L ater, p lai n ti ffs w ere al l ow ed t o r ecove rf

orthe emot i onal di s tr es s occa s i oned by the f earf orthei row n saf

ety, but o n ly w h e n a c c o m p a n ie d b y p h y s ic a l im p a c t. P ro s s e r a n d K e e to n , supra § 54, 363- 64. T he “i m pactdoctr i ne” l at erbecam e regar ded as i nher ent l y arbi tr ary beca us e of the appa r ent di s cont i nui ty betw een the rul e’ s s cope and un der l yi ng purpos e. A s one comm ent at or o b s e rv e d , “ a n e a r m is s m a y b e a s fr ig h te n in g a s a d ir e c t h it.” R ic h a rd N . P e a rs o n , L ia b ili ty t o B ys tanders f

orN egli gent l y I nf l i ct ed Em ot i onalH

ar m –A C om m ent

on the N

at ur e of A r bi tr ar y Rul es , 34 U . Fl a. L . R ev. 477, 488 ( 1982) . T he “i m pactdoctr i ne” e ventual l y w as r epl ace d by a rul e al l ow i ng r ecove r y f orthe emot i onal di s tr es s r es ul t i ng f r om thr eat s t o t he pl ai nt i f f’ s phys i cal s af

ety, r egar dl es s of

phys i cal i m pact , i f

the pl ai nt i f

f w as w i thi n the “z one of phys i cal i m pactorda nger . ” T h in g v. L a Ch u sa , 771 P. 2d 814, 832 ( C al . 1989) ( K auf m an, J. , sp ec ial ly co n cu rri n g ).

### 5

¶9. In Fi rs t

Nati onal

B ank v. L angley , 3 1 4 S o . 2 d 3 2 4 (M iss. 1 9 7 5 ), this C o u rt abandone d the “i m pactdoctr i ne. ” W e hel d that“genuine cas es of i nj ury gr ow i ng outof n e g lig e n t ac ts o f a n o th e r– w h ich a re re a so n a b ly fo re se e a b le a s in o th e r n e g lig e n t ca se s– w ill notbe di s m i s s ed s i m pl y be caus e ther e w as no tr auma nori m pacton the body of the i nj ur ed cl ai m ant . ” Id . a t 3 3 9 . N o ta b ly , L angley w as n o t a b y stan d er c ase . R athe r, the p lai n ti ff th ere w a s th e p e rs o n u p o n w h o m th e n e g lig e n t c o n d u c t w a s in fl ic te d . Id . at325. B eca us e L angley w a s n o t a b y s ta n d e r c a s e , L angley m ade no ment i on of the “z one of

da nger ” rul e adopt ed by a maj or i ty of

j ur i s di ct i ons af

t erthey aba ndoned the “i m pactdoctr i ne. ” ¶ 1 0 . S ig n if

ic a n tly , D illon r ej ect ed t he “ z on e of da ng e r ” rul e , f

i nd i ng i t “ ho pe l e s s [ l y] art i f i ci al [ ] . ” D il

lon , 441 P. 2d at915. I n D il lon , the pl ai nt i f

f’ s daught erw as s truck and ki l l ed b y a n a u to m o b ile . Id . a t 91 4 . T h e p lai n ti ff w itn esse d the a cc iden t, b u t fr o m a loca ti o n w h ere th e p la in tif

f h e rs e lf w a s n o t in p h y s ic a l d a n g e r. Id . at915. T he D il lon Courtr eas oned that the “z one of

danger ” conc epti nevi t abl y col l aps es unders i m i l arr eas ons f orr ej ect i ng t he

“ im p a c t ru le,” b e c a u se “ th e o n ly re a so n fo r th e re q u ire m e n t o f p re se n c e in th a t zo n e lies in the f actthatone w i thi n i tw i l l f earthe dange rof

[ i ] m pact . ” Id . ¶11. Fi ndi ng D il

lon p e rs u a s iv e , E ntex setforth t he f ol l ow i ng f

act or s , t aken ve rbat i m f

r om D il lon , thatm us tbe cons i der ed w hen det erm i ni ng w hethera bys t anderm ay r ecove rf or em oti on al -di stres s dam ages: ( 1) W hetherpl ai nt i f

f w as l ocat ed nea rthe s cene of the ac ci dentas contr as t ed w i th on e w ho w as a di s t ance aw ay f r om i t . ( 2) W hetherthe s hock r es ul t ed f r om a di r ectemot i onal i m pactupon pl ai nt i f f fr om the s ens ory and cont empora ne ou s ob s e rva nc e of the a c c i de nt , a s c on tr as t ed w i th l earni ng of the a c c id e n t fro m o th e rs a fte r its o c c u rre n c e . (3 ) W h e th e r p lain tiff a n d th e v ictim w er e cl os el y r el at ed, a s c ontr as t ed w i th a n abs ence of any r el at i ons hi p orthe pr es ence of

onl y a di s t antr el at i ons hi p.E ntex i n c o rp o r a t e d l a n g u a g e f r o m D il lon w i th no di s cus s i on as t o w hy i tf ound t he 1 c a s e p e rs u a s iv e . E ntex , 4 1 4 S o . 2 d a t 4 4 4 . 

### 6 E ntex , 414 So. 2d at444 ( ci t i ng D il lon , 441 P. 2d at920) . I n E ntex , thi s Courtmade no m ent i on of the “z one of danger ” rul e. T he E ntex C o u rt sim p ly n o ted th a t L angley had abandone d the “i m pactdoctr i ne” a nd f ound D il lon ’s b y s ta n d e r r u le p e rs u a s iv e . ¶12. H er e, beca us e A cey undi s put abl y f ai l s t o m eetthe f

i r s ttw o D il

lon o r E ntex fact ors, s h e d o e s n o tq u a l i f

y f o re mo t i o n a l - d i s t r e s s r e c o v e ry u n d e rM i s s i s s i p p i b y s t a n d e rl a w. I nexpl i c a bl y, the di s s e ntf i nd s the s e tw o f

a c t or s ne utr a l . The y a r e no t . A nd , a s w i l l be e x p lain e d , n o t ev e n u n d e r C a lifo rn ia’ s b y sta n d e r la w w o u ld A c e y ’s b y sta n d e r c laim p re v a il underthes e tw o f

act or s . C ontr ary t o the di s s ent ’ s under s t andi ng, the D il lon f act or s –under p re se n t C a lifo rn ia la w – a re n o t m e re ly g u id e lin e s th a t sh o u ld b e “ tak e [n ] i n to a c c o u n t” in 1 det erm i ni ng w hethera pl ai nt i f f i s a f or es eeabl e vi ct i m of

the def endant ’ s negl i gence ; t hey in d e e d a re m a tte r- o f- la w p re re q u is ite s th a t a c la im a n t m u s t m e e t. See T h in g v. L a Ch u sa , 7 7 1 P .2 d 8 1 4 , 8 3 0 (C a l. 19 8 9 ); see al so Bi r d v. Sae nz , 51 P. 3d 324, 327 ( C a. 2002) ( not i ng th a t L a Ch u sa m ade the D il lon fact ors m a n da tory req u irem e n ts thatbys t andercl ai m s f or em o ti o n al distr ess m u st sati sfy to b e a cc ep ted a s v ali d ) (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶13. Fur ther , ther e ar e num er ous pr obl ems w i th the di s s ent ’ s r at i onal e, w hi ch w e w i l l poi nt outbeca us e, i f

i tw er e t o be a ppl i ed i n thi s s t at e, M i s s i s s i ppi ’ s bys t anderl aw w oul d no doubt re s u lt in in fi n ite lia b ility in a lm o s t e v e ry n e g lig e n c e a c tio n . See, e. g. , D il lon , 441 P. 2d at919 (“In o rde r t o li m itthe o therw ise p o ten ti al i n fi n it e li ab il ity w h ich w o u ld fo ll o w ev ery n e g lig e n t ac t, th e law o f to rts h o ld s d e fe n d a n t am e n a b le o n ly fo r in ju rie s to o th e rs w h ich to d e fe n d a n t a t th e tim e w e re re a s o n a b ly fo re s e e a b le .” ).

### 7

¶14. T he f

i r s t pr obl em w i th t he dis sent ’ s r at i onal e i s i t s s ol e f ocus on the f

act thatA cey w itn e ss e d h e r d a u g h ter ’s in ju ry , b u t n o t th e a c c id e n t it se lf. T h is g o e s s q u a re ly a g a in st b o th D il lon ’ s and E ntex ’ s s econd f or es eea bi l i ty f

act or , w hi ch i nqui r es w hetherthe m ent al / emot i onal shock “r es ul t ed f r om t he se ns ory and cont empora neous observance of t he acci dent , as contr as t ed w i th l earni ng of the acci dent

fr om ot her s af

t eri t s occurr ence . ” E ntex , 414 So. 2 d a t4 44 ( e mpha s i s a dd e d) . Eve ry pa r e ntwi l l wi tne s s the r e s ul t ( s ) o f hi s orher c h ild ’s a c c id e n t, bu t D il lon and E ntex l i m i t ed the r ange of for es eea bl e pl ai nt i f

f s t o thos e w ho s e n s o ri ly o r c o n te m p o ra n e o u s ly o b s e rv e d th e a c c id e n t. ¶ 1 5 . H e re , the re c o rd e v id e n c e u n d isp u tab ly sh o w s th a t A c e y d id n o t w itn e ss th e a c c id e n t. R ather , A cey l earned of the acc i dentfr om herson, w ho l earned of t he ac ci dentf

r om a 911 d isp a tch e r. T h is c irc u m sta n c e ra ise s n u m e ro u s q u e stio n s th a t th e d iss e n t fa ils to tak e in to cons i der at i on. B eca us e A cey w as notpr es enta tthe s cene of the acc i dentw hen the ac ci dent occurr ed, di d anyone ow e A cey a duty nott o al l ow heront o t he pr emi s es af t ers he l earned of the acc i denti n or dert o pr eventthe m ent al / emot i onal di s tr es s A cey c l ai m s r es ul t ed f r om w i tnes s i ng herdaught er ’ s i nj ur i es ? L i kew i s e, di d anyone ow e A cey a duty nott o i nf or m her of the ac ci dent ? O rdi d A cey ow e a duty t o her s el f nott o go t o herdaught er ? ¶1 6 . T h ese , o f co u rse, are inan e q u esti o n s from a co m m o n -sen se stan d p o int. B u t they are v ery real i nq uir i es that m ustbe co nsi dered w i th regard t o the deg ree of E nter g y ’s f or es eea bi l i ty–the corner s t one of a def endant ’ s duty and l i abi l i ty. I s thi s f orthe f act f i nder t o r es ol ve, ori s i ta l egal ques t i on r es erved f orthe court ? A s s um i ng t he f or m er , w hatt ype of evi dence m us tbe putbef ore t he fa ct f

i ndert o al l ow the f

act f i ndert o det erm i ne f or es eea bi l i ty?T he s peci al concurr ence i n L a Ch u sa not ed thata maj or i t y of j ur i s di ct i ons have 2 re jec ted b y sta n d e r lia b ili ty in fa v o r o f th e z o n e -o f-d a n g e r r u le, f o r th e re a so n th a t “D il

lon ’s conf i dentpr edi ct i on t hatf

utur e court s w oul d be abl e t o fi x j us tand s ens i bl e boundar i es on bys t anderl i abi l i ty has been f ound t o be w hol l y i l l us ory–both i n theory and i n pr act i ce. ” La Ch u sa , 7 7 1 P .2 d a t 8 3 3 (K a u fm a n , J ., s p e c ia lly c o n c u rr in g ). 

### 8 ¶17. I n L a Ch u sa , 771 P. 2d 814, 819 ( C a. 1989) , the C al i f orni a Supr eme C our texami ned thes e types of

rhet or i cal , l egal ques t i ons and acknow l edged thats ubs equenti nt erpr et at i on of D il lon ’ s gui del i nes by C al i f orni a court s ha d pr oduced arbi tr ary a nd c onf l i ct i ng r es ul t s and “eve rw i deni ng ci r cl es of l i abil i t y. ” T he L a Chusa C our tcorr ect ed cour s e. I n pl ace of 2 D il lon ’ s “nonexc l us i ve” gui del i nes , the L a Ch u sa C our tm ade the D il lon fac tors m an d atory r equi rem ents that byst and er cl ai m s f or em oti on al dis tres s m ustsat i sf y to be accep t ed as va l i d. S p e c if ic a lly , L a Ch u sa held “that a pl ai nti ff m ay recov er dam ages for em oti on al dis tres s c a u se d b y o b se rv in g th e n e g lig e n tly in flicte d in ju ry o f a th ird p e rs o n if , b u t o n ly if, sa id pl ai nt i f f: ( 1) i s cl os el y r el at ed t o t he i nj ury vi ct i m ; ( 2) i s pr es entatthe s cene of the i nj ur yp r o d u c i n g e v e n ta tt h e t i me i to c c u r s a n d i s t h e n a wa r e t h a ti ti s c a u s i n g i n j u ry t o th e v i c t i m; and ( 3) as a r es ul tsuf

f er s ser i ous em ot i onal di s tr es s –a r eac t i on beyond t hatw hi ch w oul d be ant i ci pat ed in a di s i nt er es t ed w i tnes s and w hi ch i s notan abnorm al r es pons e t o t he ci r cumst ance s . ” I n appl yi ng thes e r equi r ement s t o the f act s bef or e i t , the L a Ch u sa C o u rt hel d that , a s a mat t erof l aw , the pl ai nt i f

f / m otherc oul d nots t at e a cl ai m fornegl i gent infl ict ion o f em o ti o n al distr ess. T h e p lai n ti ff m o ther h ad b ee n n ea rby w h en the d efe n d an t’ s a u to m o b ile s tru c k an d inju re d h e r ch ild , b u t th e m o th e r h a d n o t se e n an d h e a rd th e a c c id e n t. T he mot her , l i ke A cey, beca m e aw ar e o f the ac ci dentonl y w hen s om eone t ol d heri thad occurr ed, a nd the mot herrus hed t o the s cene and s aw herchi l d l yi ng i nj ur ed and unc ons ci ous

### 9

on t he r oad. T he L a Ch u sa C o u rtfou n d tha t, u n d er the se fa cts, the m o ther c o u ld n o t sat isf y th e r e q u i r e me n to f

h a v i n g b e e n p r e s e n ta tth e s c e n e o f th e i n j u ry - p r o d u c i n g e v e n ta tth e t i me i toccurr ed and of

havi ng been a w ar e thati tw as caus i ng i nj ury t o the vi ct i m . T he L a Ch u sa C our tr ei nf

or ced i t s concl us i on by di s appr ovi ng the s ugges t i on i n pr i or C al i f orni a ca s es (p ro c e e d in g o n ra tio n a le s im ilar to th e d iss e n t h e re ) th a t a n e g lig e n t ac to r is lia b le to a ll per s ons “w ho m ay have s uf f er ed emot i on al di s tr es s on vi ew i ng orl earni ng aboutt he i nj ur i ou s c on s e qu e nc e s o f h i s c on du c t ” r a the rtha n on v i e w i ng the i nj ury- pr od uc i ng event its e lf . Id . a t 8 3 0 . ¶18. A C al i f

orni a ca s e not ed by the L a Ch u sa C ou rti s H athaw ay v. Su

peri or Cou rt , 112 C al . A pp. 3d 728, 169 C al . R ptr . 435 ( 1980) , w hi ch addr es s ed a ve ry s i m i l artype cl ai m as the one he r e bef

or e us . I n H

athaw ay , par ent s al l eged a caus e of act i on f ornegl i gent in fl ic tio n o f e m o tio n a l d is tr e s s fo r t h e irs o n ’s d e a th . H athaw ay , 112 C al . A pp. 3d at730. W hi l e par e nt s w e r e a tt he i ri nl a w s ’ r e s i de nc e , the i rs on w a s pl a yi ng ou t s i de a nd w as e le c tr o c u te d b y a n e v a p o ra to r c o o le r j u s t in s ta lle d o u ts id e t h e in la w s ’ h o m e . Id . A not her c h ild h a d c o m e in to th e h o m e a n d to ld th e p a re n ts th e irs o n w a s h u rt . Id . a t 73 1 . T h e p a re n ts im m e d iate ly w e n t o u tsid e , sa w th e ir so n lyin g in a p u d d le o f w a ter , an d w a tch e d e ffo rts to s a v e th e b o y ’s lif

e . Id . T h e tr ial c o u rtd en ied the p are n ts’ claim u n d er D il lon ’s f o rse e a b ili ty sta n d a rd , b e c a u se w h e n the p a re n ts a rriv e d o u tsid e ap p ro x im a tely o n e m in u te a fte r th e e v e n t, the eve ntw hi ch had c ons t i tut ed the ac ci denthad ende d. T he C our tof A ppeal , Fi f

th D i s tr i ct of C al i f orni a, af f i r m ed the tr i al c our t ’ s di s m i s s al be caus e the evi dence w as uncontr adi ct ed th a t th e p lain tiffs d id n o t se n so rily p e rc e iv e th e in ju ry -c a u sin g e v e n t, bu t sa w o n ly th e re su lts a ft e r t h e a c c id e n t w a s o v e r. Id . a t 7 3 6 .

### 10

¶19. H er e, as E nter gy asser t s, M i ssi ssi ppi l aw has been c ons i s t entr egar di ng bys t ander rec o v ery for e m o ti o n al-distress d am ag es. N o ca se from e ith er th is C o u rto r a fed era l cou rt cons trues orgues s es M i s s i s s i ppi s ubs t ant i ve l aw and s us t ai ns a caus e of act i on by a thi r dparty pl ai nt i f

f agai ns tan al l eged t or t f eas oron the theory of by st and err ecove ry, w her e the p lain tiff w a s n o t p re se n t at the ti m e o f th e ac c id e n t an d lea rn e d o f th e a c c id e n t o n ly a fte r its o c c u rr e n c e . See Miss . S ta te F e d ’n o f Co lo re d

W o m e n ’s Clu b Ho u sin gfo r E lde rly in Clin to n , I

n c . v. L. R. , 62 So. 3d 351, 359 ( M i s s . 2010) ( af f i r m i ng tr i al c our t ’ s di r ect ed ver di ct agai ns tm other ’ s bys t andercl ai m f ore m ot i onal di s tr es s be caus e m otherw as notpr es enton the p rem ises o f ap artm en t com p lex w h ere h er e leve n -ye ar d au g h ter w as statuto ri ly rap ed ); Sum m e rs e

x. r e l . D aws on v. St

. Andr e w’s Epis c op al

Sc h. , 759 So . 2d 12 03 , 12 1 0 (M i ss. 2000) ( hol di ng thatpare nt s of young s tudentm ol es t ed by others tudent s on s chool p layg rou n d w ere n o t f o rese ea b le plaintif

fs for th ir d -pa rty , em o ti o n al-distress rec o v ery b e c a u se th e p a re n ts w e re n o t lo c a ted n e a r th e sc e n e w h e n th e e v e n ts o c c u rre d ); see al so Miles e x r el . Miles v. VT

H alterMar ine I

nc. , 792 F. S upp. 2d 919, 925- 26 ( E . D . L a. 2011) ( s umm a ry j ud gmen te nt e r e d a ga i ns tf a the ro f wor ke rk i l l e d i n s hi py a r d a c c i de ntcl ai m i ng m ent al di s tr es s beca us e al l eged di s tr es s s uf f er ed by f

atherw as no tcaus ed by c o n t e mp o r a n e o u s o b s e r v a n c e o f a c c i d e n t ; e v e n th o u g h f a th e rwa s wo r k i n g n e a rb y a n d c a me upon s cene s hor t l y a f

t era cci dentw hen r es us ci t at i on e f f or t s w er e underw ay, f

atherdid not w itn e ss a c c id e n t); Moor e v. K r ogerCo. , 800 F. Supp. 429, 433 ( N . D . M i s s . 1992) ( deni ed emot i onal - di s tr es s cl ai m s of f ami l y m ember s of

vi ct i m of

m ot or - vehicl e acci dentw hen fa m ily m e m b e rs d id n o t w itn e ss a c c id e n t); Campb ell v. B everl

y E n ters. , 724 F. Supp. 439, 4 4 0 (S .D . M iss . 1 9 8 9 ) ( d e n ied e m o tio n a l d istre ss c laim o f f a m ily m e m b e rs o f a n a lleg e d lyErie R. R. Co. v. Tom pk ins , 3 0 4 U .S . 6 4 , 5 8 S . C t. 8 1 7 , 8 2 L . E d . 1 8 8 (1 9 3 8 ). 3 A g ain, w e p o int ou t th at, ev en u n d er D il lon orpr e- L a Ch u sa , A cey w oul d nothave 4 be e n e nt i t l e d t o b ys t a nd e rr e c ov e r y u nd e rCal i f orni a l a w , a s t he Hathaw ay c a s e , supra , illu s tr a te s . 

### 11 m i s tr eat ed nur s i ng- hom e pat i entbeca us e f ami l y m ember s di d notobs erve the al l eged m istrea tm en t) . ¶2 0. T he di s s entfi nd s Ent e r gy ’ s pr e c e pt–a nd ou ra c kn owl e dg mentof i t–di s i ngenuous beca us e the f

eder al court s m ade E rie g u e s s e s a s t o p r e v a i l i n g M i s s i s s i p p i b y s t a n d e rl a w. 3 T h e d issen t, h o w ev er, ov erloo k s a ll the M issi ssipp i ca se law tha t plainly rejec ts th e d issen t’ s p o s itio n a n d ra tio n a le . ¶21. T he di s s entnextcal l s us outforspendi ng t he f i r s ts even pa ges of

ouranal ys i s r el yi ng pr i nci pal l y on C al i f

orni a cas el aw t o poi ntoutw hy the di s s enti s w r ong i ns t ead of anal yzi ng t he c a s e a th a nd . H e r e i s why we d i d s o. Pr i ort o the d i s s e nt , o uro pi ni on be gan by t hor oughl y anal yzi ng thi s cas e underthe D il lon f act or s adopt ed by E ntex ( s ee s up ra and i nfr a ) . T he di s s ent , how ever , r eal i zi ng thatthe undi s put ed f act s of thi s cas e do notas cr i be t o the pl ai n l anguage of the D il lon/ E ntex f act or s , responde d by cont endi ng thatw e had m i s i nt erpr et ed E ntex . A ccor di ng t o the di s s ent , beca us e the E ntex Courtf avor abl y quot ed f r o m D il lon , w her e the D il

lon C our ts t at ed thatcourt s s houl d “t ake i nt o acc ount ” the thr ee D il lon f act ors w hen eval uati ng w hethera by st and er w as a for eseeable plai nti ff , w e w ere w ro n g to tre a t th e se f

a c to rs a s p re re q u isites . A n d , ac c o rd in g to th e d iss e n t, “a ju ry sh o u ld d ec ide w h ethe r th e u n iqu e a sp ec ts of this bu rn in jury sh o u ld en ti tl e A c e y to reli ef.” In re sp o n se , w e p o se d a n u m b e r o f q u e stio n s th a t w e h a d h o p e d th e d iss e n t w o u ld tak e in to c o n sid e ra tio n , a s C a lifo rn ia u lti m a tely w a s fo rc e d to d o . T h e d iss e n t’s re sp o n se : “I sim p ly 4

### 12

a m n o t co n c e rn e d w ith p o st- D il lon ju risp ru d e n c e in C a lifo rn ia. M y c o n c e rn is [M iss iss ip p i’s] b y sta n d e r liab ili ty ju ris p ru d e n c e , an d [th a t] th is C o u rt n e v e r h a s s a id

– u n til t oday–thatthe D il

lon fac tors are ‘m an d atory req u ir em en ts. ’” ¶22. W e f

ai l ed. R atherthan of

f era ny l egal expl anat i on ( or–r ather–r eas oni ng) w hy or how s om eone w ho w as nei therato r near t he sce ne of the ac ci dentw hen i toccurr ed, nor exper i ence d a s ens ory orcont empora neous obs ervati on of the ac ci dent , m ay cons t i tut e a f or es eea bl e pl ai nt i f

f f orbys t anderr ecove ry underthe E ntex s t andar ds , the di s s ents tr es s es th a t E ntex i ns truct s thatthe D il lon fa c to rs n e e d o n ly b e tak e n “ in to a c c o u n t.” T h e o n ly c o n c lu sio n th is lo g ic y ield s is th a t E ntex pr ovi des no s t andar d a ta l l . W e do nots o i nt erpr et E ntex . ¶ 2 3 . Br i e f

l y , t h e f o l l o wi n g l a n g u a g e f

r o m E ntex i s al l the E ntex C our tr el ayed f r om D il lon :The r e a s on i ng o f

the Cal i f

orni a Cour ti n D illon v. L egg , 68 C al . 2d 728, 69 C a l. R p tr. 7 2 , 4 4 1 P .2 d 9 1 2 (1 9 6 8 ) in se tti n g o u t th e fo llo w in g fa c to rs in th is type of cl ai m i s per s uas i ve: I n det erm i ni ng, . . . w hetherdef endants houl d r e a s on a bl y f or es ee the in jury to p lai n ti ff, or, . . . w h ethe r de fen d an t ow es p lai n ti ff a d u ty o f du e ca re, the c o u rt s w il l take into a cc o u n t suc h fac tors as the f ol l ow i ng: ( 1) W hetherpl ai nt i ff w as l ocat ed nea rthe s cene of the ac ci dentas contr as t ed w i th one w ho w as a di s t ance aw ay f r om i t . ( 2) W he the rthe s ho c k r e s ul t e d f r om a d i r ect emot i onal i m pactupon pl ai nt i f f f r om the s ens ory a nd c o n tem p o ra n e o u s o b se rv a n c e o f th e a c c id e n t, as c o n tra ste d w ith l earni ng of

the ac ci dentf

r om other s af

t er i t s occ urr ence . ( 3) W hetherpl ai nt i ff

and the vi ct i m w er e cl os el y r el at ed, as contr as t ed w i th an abs ence of any r el at i ons hi p or t he pr es ence o f o n ly a d is ta n t r e la tio n s h ip . D il lon [ 68 Cal . 2 d a t7 40 - 41, 69 C a l. R p tr . a t 8 0 , 4 4 1 P .2 d a t 9 2 0 ]. E ntex , 4 1 4 S o . 2 d a t 4 4 4 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ).F ort he sa ke of t hor oughnes s , A cey c ont ends thats he arr i ved atthe ac ci dents cene 5 i n s even m i nut es ; how ever , thi s i s bas ed upon the us ual tr avel t i m e betw een w her e A cey w as l ocat ed w hen s he l earned of t he acc i dentand t he acc i dentsce ne. M or e t han s even mi nut es w oul d have el aps ed betw een the t i m e of the ac ci dentand the t i m e A cey a rr i ved atthe s cene . T her e i s no i ndi cat i on i n the r ecor d of t he exactt i m e A . A . w as el ectr ocut ed, how ever , t he re c o rd s h o w s t h e f

o ll o w in g c o u rs e o f e v e n ts : ( 1 ) t h e 9 1 1 c a ll w a s p la c e d a t 1 0 :4 5 a .m ., r eport i ng A . A . ’ s acc i dent ; ( 2) e m er gency r es ponder s w er e di s pat ched at10: 55 a . m . ; ( 3) A cey r e c e i v e d a p h o n e c a l l f

r o m th e 9 1 1 d i s p a t c h e ri n f o r mi n g h e ro f

th e a c c i d e n ta ta n u n k n o wn 

### 13 ¶24. A gai n, the E ntex C our tpr ovi ded no di s cus s i on w hatever as t o w hy i tf ound D il lon per s uas i ve, onl y t hati tdi d s o underthe f act s of the ca s e bef

or e i t . T he E ntex C our tf ound al l thr ee D il

lon f act or s w er e af

f i r m at i vel y met( notne utr al ) . T hus , the pl ai nt i f f, M cG uir e, had pr es ent ed a va l i d cl ai m f orbys t anderr ecove ry. M cG ui r e w as l ocat ed betw een f i f t een a n d tw e n ty fe e t f

ro m h is h o m e w h e n it e x p lo d e d . E ntex , 4 1 4 S o . 2 d a t 43 9 . M cG u ir e’s w if e w a s in s id e th e h o m e . Id . M cG ui r e hea r d hi s w i f e’ s s cr eams and s aw thei rhom e cons um ed in fla m e s . Id . M cG ui r e as s i s t ed hi s w i f e i n es capi ng f

r om the burni ng hom e r i ghtbef or e a s e c o n d e x p lo s io n o c c u rr e d . Id . A f t ercons i der i ng the D il

lon f act or s , thi s C our taf

f i r m ed a v e rd ic t in M c G u ir e ’s fa v o r. I d a t 4 4 4 . ¶25. I n the ca s e bef

or e us , A cey a nal ogi zes hers i tuat i on t o thati n E ntex and ar gues t hat hercl ai m s s at i s f

y the D il lon f act or s . I ti s undi s put ed thatA cey s at i s f i es the thi r d f

act orof D il lon , b e c a u s e A c e y is A .A .’s m o th e r, th e re fo re , th e y a re c lo s e ly re la te d . E ntex , 414 So. 2d at444 ( ci t i ng D il

lon , 4 4 1 P . 2 d a t 9 2 0 ). B u t A c e y fa ils u n d e r t h e fi rs t tw o fa c to rs . ¶2 6. A cey a r gues t hatf a c t oro ne , whethe rp l a i nt i f f was l oc a t e d ne art he s cene of t he acc i dent , i s s at i s f

i ed, beca us e s he arr i ved att he acc i dentsce ne w i thi n m i nut es ; herdaught er w as cont i nui ng t o be i nj ur ed as a r es ul tof the acc i dent , s i nce herbody w as s t i l l s m oki ng and hers ki n w as f

l aki ng, and A . A . w as s t i l l l ocat ed atthe ac ci dents cene . E ntex , 414 So. 2d at 5t i m e af

t erthe acc i dentw as r eport ed; ( 4) emer gency r es ponder s arr i ved atthe ac ci dents cene at11: 12 a. m . ; ( 5) A cey’ s t es t i m ony st at es t hats he thi nks that the e m erg en cy resp o n d ers arr i ved w i thi n a f

ew m i nut es of

herarr i val ; ( 6) tw ent y-seven m i nut es el aps ed betw een the tim e th e 9 1 1 c a ll w a s m a d e a n d th e tim e th a t e m e rg e n c y re s p o n d e rs a rr iv e d o n th e s c e n e . 

### 14 444 ( ci t i ng D il

lon , 441 P. 2d at920) . A cey c om par es hers ubs equentpr es ence atthe ac ci dent s cene t o the s i tuat i on i n E ntex by st at i ng thatA cey he l ped pul l herdaught erf r om the cott on p ic k e r, w h ic h is c o m p a ra b le to M c G u ir e p u llin g h is w if e fr o m a b u rn in g h o u s e . E ntex , 414 S o . 2 d a t 4 3 9 . H o w e v e r, u n lik e M c G u ire , A c e y w a s n o t pr e se n t du rin g the n e g lig e n t ev e n t, a n d w itn e s s e d o n ly th e r e s u lt o f E n te rg y ’s a lle g e d n e g lig e n c e . See, e. g. , H athaw ay , 1 6 9 C a l. R ptr . 435. T he depos i t i on t es t i m ony of A cey, B erry, and B erry’ s son st at es t hatB erry’ s s on m oved A . A . f

r om the t op of

the cott on pi ckerand hande d hert o B erry, w ho hel d A . A . on the s i de- pl at f

or m of the cott on pi ckerunt i l emer gency r es ponder s arr i ved t o r emove A . A . f r om th e m a c h in e ry . ¶27. R egar dl ess of w ho re m oved A . A . fr om t he cot t on pi cker , i ti s undi s put ed t hatA cey wa s n o tp r e s e n twh e n A. A. g r a b b e d th e p o we rl i n e o rwh e n Be rry a n d h i s s o n p u l l e d A. A. dow n f r om the t op of

the cott on pi cker . A ccor di ngl y, w e f i nd thatA cey doe s notmeett he f i r s tf act orof the D il lon or En tex te s t. ¶2 8. N ext , A cey ar gues tha tf a c t ortw o, w he the rpl a i nt i f f s uf f e r s f r om t he s e ns ory and cont empora neous obs ervat i on of the ac ci dent , as contr as t ed w i th l earni ng of the ac ci dent from o thers a ft er it s o cc u rren ce , is sati sfi ed , b ec a u se s h e w as n o t i n form ed o f he r ch il d ’s s peci f i c i nj ur i es bef

or e s he arr i ved atthe s cene , and A . A . ’ s i nj ur i es w er e st i l l devel opi ng w h e n s h e a rr iv e d . Id . A c e y go e s o n t o c ompa r e thi s a r gu mentt o the s i tuat i on i n E n tex, beca us e M cG ui r e, atthe t i m e of the expl os i on, had hi s back turned aw ay f r om the home.

### 15

E ntex , 41 4 S o. 2d at43 9. A cey theref ore ar gu es that M cG uir e saw on l y the af t eref fect s, w hi ch i s the s ame as A cey s eei ng t he af t er ef f ect s w hen s he arr i ved atthe ac ci dents cene m in u te s la te r. H o w e v e r, a s p re v io u s ly s ta te d , E ntex s t at es thatM cG ui r e w as pr es entatthe v e r y m o m e n t th e a c c id e n t o c c u rr e d a n d s im u lta n e o u s ly h e a rd h is w if e c ry o u t. Id . at U ndoubtedl y, M cG ui r e expe r i ence d a s ens ory and cont empora neous obs ervat i on of t he a c c id e n t its e lf

, n o t th e a ft e re ff

e c ts , a s A c e y c o n te n d s . ¶29. A cey nextcal l s att ent i on t o Ca m p b e ll . I n Ca m

p b e ll , the f

eder al di s tr i ct courtf

ound th a t p lain tiffs c o u ld n o t re c o v e r e m o tio n a l-d istre ss d a m a g e s fo r in ju rie s in flicte d o n th e ir m ot hera s a r e s ul to f

a l l e ge d mi s tr e a t mentwhi l e s he was l i vi ng i n a n ur s i ng hom e. Ca m p b e ll , 7 2 4 F . S u p p . a t 4 4 0 . T h e c o u rt o p in e d th a t th e M iss iss ip p i S u p re m e C o u rt w o u ld notcons i derr ecove r y w i thoutthe occ urr ence of a “tr aumat i c physi cal i nj ury” or“thr eat ened v io le n t p h y s ic a l in

ju ry ,” a n d th e re fo re d e n ie d p la in ti f fs ’ c la im . Ca m

p b e ll , 724 F. Supp. at 442. I n the cas e s ub j udi ce , A cey mi s cons trues the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s s t at ementt o m ean that by st ander s w ho do notw i tnes s the negl i gentactcan r ecove ri f di r ectphys i cal i nj ur y or threa tene d v iolen t ph y sical i n jury w as w itn esse d . A s p o inted o u t by the fe d era l distri ct co u rt i n Moo re , Ca m

p b e ll , i n m aki ng an E rie de t erm i nat i on, m er el y as s um ed w i thoutdeci di ng t hat even i f thi r d- party pl ai nt i f

f s coul d re coverw i thoutw i tnes s i ng t he ac tual event , the Ca m p b e ll pl ai nt i f f s coul d notr ecove rf

r om s uch a c l ai m b ecause they coul d notm ake outa ca s e f or actual physi cal i nj ur i es suf f er ed by t he pat i entas a r es ul tof def endant s ’ al l eged ne gl i gence . Moo re , 800 F. Supp. at434 ( cons trui ng Ca m p b e ll , 7 2 4 F . S u p p . a t 4 4 1 -4 4 2 ). ¶30. Fur ther , thi s C our ti n S u m m ers n o ted th at Ca mp b e ll d id n o t e x p a n d th e h o ld in g in E ntex– n o r c o u ld it. S u m m ers , 759 So. 2d at1210. I n S u m m ers , par ent s br oughtan ac t i on

### 16

againstSt . A ndr ew ’ s E pi s copal School , al l egi ng they had s uf f er ed emot i onal di s tr ess resu lt ing from their da u g h ter’s i n v o lvem en t i n a n inc iden t w h il e sh e w as u n d er the sch o o l’ s s u p e rv is io n . S u m m ers , 759 So. 2d at1206- 10. Thi s Courtuphe l d the tr i al c our t ’ s gr antof s um m ary j udgm ent , hol di ng thatthe par ent s ’ emot i onal di s tr es s di d notequat e t o a cont empora neous obs ervat i on b ecause they w er e notl ocat ed atornearthe s cene of the in c id e n t w h e n th e i n c id e n t o c c u rr e d . S u m m ers , 7 5 9 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 1 1 . In its o p in io n , this C our tpoi nt ed t o the f

actthatthe pl ai nt i f

f s i n Moo re ar gued thatthe l anguage i n Ca m p b e ll ex p an d ed th e h o lding o f E ntex , t hus re cogni zi ng re covery forem ot i onal di s tr es s even w hen the pl ai nt i f

f w as out s i de t he ar ea of “i m m edi at e s ens ory per cept i on. ” S u m m ers , 759 So. 2d at1210 ( ci t i ng Moo re , 800 F. Supp. at433) . Sum m er s agr eed w i th Moo re ’ s hol di ng that

“ a ft e r- th e -f

a c t w itn e s s e s ” c a n n o t b e in c lu d e d in th e c la s s o f f o re s e e a b le p la in ti ff

s . S u m m ers , 759 So. 2d at1210 ( ci t i ng Moo re , 8 0 0 F . S u p p . a t 4 3 4 ). ¶31. L ast l y, A cey argues t hatthe f act s of thi s cas e ar e s i m i l art o a C al i f orni a C our t of A ppeal s cas e i n w hi ch the C our tchos e nott o barthe pl ai nt i f f’ s cl ai m s al l egi ng emot i onal d istress fro m arriving at his h o m e after e m erg en cy res p o n d ers h ad a rri v ed to ex ti n g u ish a fi re a t h is r e s id e n c e a n d to re s c u e h is fa m ily m e m b e rs w h o w e re s till i n s id e . Zuni ga v. Hous ing Auth. , 41 C al . A pp. 4th 82, 103, 48 C al . R ptr . 2d 353, 364, 95 C al . D ai l y O p. Ser v. 9689 (C a l. C t. A p p . 1 9 9 5 ), abr ogat ed on ot hergr ounds by Zeli g v. Cou nt

y of L os A ngeles , 2 7 C a l. A pp. 4 th 1112, 1138, 45 P. 3d 1171 ( C al . 2002). H ow ever , t he C al i f orni a cour ts peci f

i ed that r ecove ry w as notba r r ed beca us e the ac ci dentw as s t i l l occurr i ng w hen pl ai nt i f f arr i ved att he s c e n e . Id . A t th e ti m e the p lai n ti ff arri v ed , the fi re w as stil l blazing , an d h is f am il y m em b ers w e re s till t ra p p e d in s id e . Id . Th e c o u r td i s t i n g u i s h e d th e s i tu a t i o n f r o m Fi f e v. Aste ni us , in

### 17

w hi ch t he cou r tba r r e d r e c ov e r y f orf a mi l y membe r s w ho he a r d a ve hi c l e c ol l i s i on a nd subsequ ent l y cl i m bed overa w al l t o f i nd a f ami l y m emberi ns i de one of the vehi cl es. Zuni ga , 41 Cal . A pp . 4th a t10 3, 48 Cal . Rpt r . 2d a t36 4 ( c i t i ng Fi f e v. Aste ni us , 2 3 2 C a l. A pp. 3d 1090, 1092- 93, 284 C al . R ptr . 16 ( C al . C t . A pp. 1991) ) . T he courti n Fi f e hel d t hat th e fa m ily d id n o t c o n te m p o ra n e o u s ly o b s e rv e th e a c c id e n t. Id . A c c or di ng l y, we f i nd t he f a c t s o f th e c a s e b e f

o r e u s a r e d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m Zuni

ga beca us e, as pr evi ous l y s t at ed, A c e y w a s n o t a t th e s c e n e o f t h e a c c id e n t w h e n it o c c u rr e d . ¶32. T her ef

or e, A cey doe s nots at i s f y f act ortw o of

the D il lon t e s tb e c aus e s he di d not e x p e ri e n c e a s e n s o r y o rc o n te m p o ra n e o u s o b s e rv a tio n o f t h e a c c id e n t. S u m m ers , 759 So. 2 d a t 1 2 1 1 . A c e y w a s a n a ft e r- th e -f a c t w itn e s s , th u s , a n u n fo re s e e a b le p la in tif f. S u m m ers , 75 9 S o. 2 d at1210. T he U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tf orthe East ern D i s tr i ctof L oui s i ana re c e n tly in te rp re te d a n d a p p lie d M is s is s ip p i la w re g a rd in g b y s ta n d e r c la im s . Miles e x re l. Miles v. V T

H alterMar ine I

nc. , 792 F. Supp. 2d 919, 925- 26 ( E . D . La. 2011) . I n Miles , a f atherand s on w er e empl oyed atthe sam e shi pyar d butw er e, atthe t i m e, w or ki ng on d if fe re n t p a r ts o f

t h e b a rg e , w h e n th e s o n fe ll a n d u ltim a te ly d ie d . Miles , 792 F. Supp. 2d a t 9 2 6 . T e stim o n y re v e a led th a t th e fa th e r w a s in fo rm e d o f th e a c c id e n t an d th e n w a lk e d to th e a c c id e n t s c e n e , w h ic h w a s a fi v e -t o -t e n m in u te w a lk . Id . W hen the f atherarr i ved, “he w i tnes s ed the af

t er ef f ect s of the ac ci dent , namel y f

i ve ors i x other s per f

or m i ng r es us ci t at i on ef f or t s and att empt i ng t o ai d hi s s on b y pl aci ng an oxygen mas k ar ound hi s neck a nd a s tr et cherunderhi s body. ” Id . The di s tr i ctc our tde t erm i ned thatM i s s i s s i ppi l aw w oul d not al l ow the f

athert o re coverbecaus e he di d not“ac tual l y w i tnes s the ac ci dent , ” w hi ch r es ul t ed in h is so n ’s in

ju ri e s a n d la te r d e a th . Id . A gai n, i ti s i m por t antt o not e thatcas el aw f ocus es

### 18

on the i ndi vi dual ’ s obs ervat i on of the ac ci dentr atherthan the obs ervat i on of the r es ul t i ng in ju ry c a u s e d b y th e a c c id e n t. See S u m m ers , 7 5 9 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 1 0 (M iss . 2 0 0 0 ); Moor e , 800 F . S u p p . at 4 3 4 ; Miles , 7 9 2 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 9 2 5 -2 6 ; Fif e , 2 3 2 C a l. A p p . 3 d 1 0 9 2 -9 3 , 2 8 4 C a l. R p tr . 1 6 . CO NC L US I ON ¶33. T he Entex fact ors ar e m andat ory r equi r ement s that bys t ander cl ai m s f oremot i onal di s tr es s m us ts at i s f

y t o be accep t ed as va l i d underM i s s i s s i ppi l aw . A cey i s barr ed f r om r ecove ry beca us e s he w as notnearoratt he sc ene of t he acc i dent , nordi d s he expe r i ence a s e ns ory o rc on t e mpor a ne ou s ob s e r va t i on of the a c c i de nt . The r e f

or e , s umm a ry j ud gment s houl d be ent e r e d i n f

a vo rof Ent e r gy , a nd the j ud gmen tof the Ci r c ui tCour tof

Tuni ca C ounty i s r ever s ed and r emanded f orpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th thi s opi ni on. ¶ 3 4 . RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D. WALLER, C.J., RAND OLPH, P.J., CHANDLE R AND C OLEMAN, JJ., CONC UR. COLE MAN, J ., SPE CI ALL Y CO NCU RS WITH SEPARAT E WRITTE N OPINION JOINED BY RANDOLPH, P.J., C HANDLER AND PIERCE, JJ. LAMAR, J., DISSEN TS WITH SE PARA TE WR

IT TE N O PINI ONJOINED B Y D IC KIN SO N,P. J. , KI TC HE NSAND K IN G, JJ. CO L E M AN , J US T I CE , S P E CI AL L Y C ON CU RR I NG : ¶35 . I concu r w i th the m aj ori ty. A s I app reci at e i t , the q uest i on before the C ou rti n the case s ub j udi ce i s w hetherE nt er gy ow ed a l egal duty of due c ar e t o the pl ai nt i f

f , M ary B ethanne A cey. I agr ee w i th the maj or i ty that , upon appl i cat i on of the E ntex f

act or s , E nt er gy di d not a n d th a t th e c a se sh o u ld b e re v e rse d . I w ri te s e p a ra tely fo r tw o p u rp o se s. F irst, I th in k it w or th the t i m e t o emphasi ze thatthe ques t i on of w hethera l egal duty of

due c ar e exi s t s i s one of l aw and notf

act . T hati tpr es ent s a ques t i on of l aw m at t ers i n the s um m ary j udgm ent

### 19

con t ext , as I expl ai n m or e f ul l y bel ow . Second, I w r i t e t o f ur therexpl or e Cam

pb ell v. Bev e r l y Ente r pr is es , 7 24 F . Supp. 439 ( S. D . M i s s . 1989) , and the w ays i n w hi ch var i ous c o u rts h a v e c o n fu s e d th e e ffe c t ith a s, if a n y , o n th e law g o v e rn in g b y sta n d e r re c o v e ry in M iss iss ip p i. ¶36. T he C our ti n E n tex v. McG u ire , 414 So. 2d 437 ( M i s s . 1982) , gave tw o purpos es f or w h ich th e th re e -fa c to r te st a t issu e in th e in sta n t a p p e a l – w h e re b y c o u rts in M iss iss ip p i co u ld as cert ai n w hethera def

endantw oul d be l i abl e f orem ot i onal di s tr es s dam ages s uf f er ed by a bys t ander– coul d be us ed. O ne of t he tw o w as f

ora det erm i nat i on of

“w hether[ a] def

endant ow es [ a] pl ai nt i f

f a duty of due ca r e. . . . ” I

d. at 44 4 . In o u r fou r-pa rtn eg li g en ce fram ew o rk

– d u ty, brea ch , ca u sati o n , an d d am ag es – the q u esti o n o f w h ethe r o n e o w es a d u ty o f du e c are to a n o th e r i s o n e o f l a w a n d lie s w ith in th e so le p ro v in c e o f th e c o u rt . R ein v. B en ch m ark Constr. Co. , 865 So. 2d 1134, 1143 ( ¶ 29) ( M i s s . 200 4) ( “I n anal yzi ng an ac t or ’ s al l eged n e g lig e n c e , this C o u rt a sk s w h e th e r a d u ty e x ists a n d w h e th e r it h a s b e e n b re a c h e d . T h a t is a q u e stio n o f la w .”) T h e ju d g e , n o t th e ju ry , d e c id e s w h e th e r a n in ju ry is re a so n a b ly f or es eea bl e f

orthe purpos e of

det erm i ni ng the f

i r s tof the f our negl i gence pr ongs – t he e x is te n c e o f a le g a l d u ty . I d. ( ci t i ng L

yle v. Mladini ch , 5 8 4 S o . 2 d 3 9 7 , 3 9 9 (M iss. 1 9 9 1 )). ¶3 7. Sum m ar y j ud gmen t i s a pp r op r i a t e w he n t he qu e s t i on pr e s e nt e d f ord e t e r mi na t i on – s u c h a s w h e th e ra l e g a l d u ty e x is ts in a n e g lig e n c e a c tio n – is o n e o f l a w ra th e r t h a n fa c t. Cit y of Jacks on v. G ar dner , 1 0 8 S o . 3 d 9 2 7 , 9 2 8 (¶ 4 ) (M iss . 2 0 1 3 ). W h e n n o d isp u ted fa c ts e x is t, e v e n m ix e d q u e s tio n s o f l a w a n d fa c t b e c o m e q u e s tio n s o f l a w o n ly . He r nande z v. V i cker y Chevr olet-O ldsm obile Co. , I nc. , 6 5 2 S o . 2 d 1 7 9 , 1 8 2 ( M i s s . 1 9 9 5 ) . Ne i th e rmy rev iew o f the c ase n o r the d issen t ha s re v ea led to m e a n y co n test ed issue s o f fact th at th e jury

### 20

w ou l d n eed to d et erm i ne i n order forthe C ou rtto no w con du cti t s de novo r evi ew of the i s s ue p re s e n te d . A lth o u g h th e re a re so m e c o n te s te d iss u e s o f f a c t, e. g. , w hen the pl ai nt i f f l earned of the ac ci dentthati nj ur ed herdaught er , I agr ee w i th the maj or i ty and am of the opi ni on t hat t aking al l dis pu t ed fact s i n a li gh tm ostfavorable t o plai nti ff st i l l yiel ds t he resul tthat, as a m att erof l aw , the def

endantow ed no duty of due c ar e t o the pl ai nt i f

f i n the ca s e s ub j udi ce . ¶38. I n a fi nal m att er , the maj or i ty di s cus s es atl ength Ca m p b e ll , 724 F. Supp. a t439, as w el l as a l ong l i ne of

cas es thatf

ol l ow ed i t . I w r i t e s epar at el y t o expl ai n m y opi ni on t hat Ca m p b e ll d o es n o t app ly to the instan t f ac ts, an d m isap p li ca ti o n o f Ca mp b e ll th re a ten s to conf us e the t es tf

orw hethera byst andercan r ecove rundernegl i genti nf l i ct i on of emot i onal h a rm . ¶39. A cey c al l ed att ent i on t o Ca m p b e ll , ar gui ng thatbys t ander s w ho w i tnes s the i nj ur y can r ecove ri f

ther e w as di r ect“phys i cal ” or“thr eat ened vi ol entphys i cal i nj ury. ” See Ca m p b e ll , 7 2 4 F . S u p p a t4 4 2 . Ac e y t a k e s t h e a b o v e - q u o t e d l a n g u a g e d i r e c t l y f r o m Ca m p b e ll , b u t – as the maj or i ty not es – s he mi s cons trues i t . T he maj or i ty ar gues thatA cey mi s cons trues Ca m p b e ll beca us e i ti s an i s ol at ed s t at ementthatd oes n ot s i m pl y m ean bys t ander s can r ecove rw hen the vi ct i m s uf f er s thr eat ened orphys i cal i nj ury. ¶40. I n Ca m

p b e ll , the chi l dr en of

a nur s i ng hom e pat i ents ued as a thi r d party i n a negl i gent i nf l i ct i on of emot i onal harm s ui tc l ai m i ng “ pr ol onged neg l ectt ow ard theirm other[ that w as] a lleg e d ly c a u se d b y a c ts w h ich w e re in ten tio n a l, ou tra g e o u s, c a llo u s, w ill fu l, w a n to n a n d in a r eckl es s di s r egar d of

the thei rm other ’ s r i ght s . ” I d . at 44 1 (em p h asis ad d ed ). T h e p lai n ti ffs c o u ld n o t p o in t to a n y o n e “ a c c id e n t” th a t c a u s e d in ju ry to th e irm o th e r. See E ntex , 414 So. 2d at444 ( ci t i ng D il

lon v. L egg , 6 8 C al. 2d 7 2 8 , 7 4 0 -41 (19 6 8 )) ( li sti n g the fa ctors fo r th ir d

### 21

p arty e m o ti o n al distr ess re co v ery ). F ac ed w ith an issue o f fi rstim p ression , the d istri ct co u rt s ur m i s ed w hatthe M i s s i s s i ppi Supr eme C our tw oul d do i n a s i m i l ars i tuat i on – a si tuat i on w her e ther e i s no s peci f i c t r aumat i c event . T he courtdet erm i ned thatr ecove ry w oul d be an opt i on, i n the absen ce of a s peci f i c tr aumat i c eve nt , onl y w hen ther e w as a “s peci f i c and se rio u s p h y sic a l in

ju ry ” o r “ a t lea st th re a ten e d v io len t p h y sic a l in ju ry ” to th e im m e d iate v ic tim –n o t th e c h ild re n b ri n g in g th e s u it. Ca m p b e ll , 724 F. S upp at441-42. T he Ca m p b e ll courtdeni ed r ecove r y, s t at i ng thatthe chi l dr en had notal l eged thatthe mot herhad “s uf f er ed a vi ol entortr aumat i c i nj ury atthe hands of def endant . ” Id . a t 4 4 2 . ¶ 4 1 . T he s t at ement s by t he C a mp b e ll Cour t , a s pr e s e nt e d h e r e by A c e y, coul d be in terp re ted to m e a n th a t all a th ird p a rty w o u ld n e e d to p ro v e to r e c o v e r is th a t th e v ictim s uf f er ed a phys i cal i nj ury; how ever , the j udge i n Ca m p b e ll w r ot e thathe r ead E ntex t o al l ow a bys t andert o r ecove ronl y w hen the bys t anderw i tnes s es “a s udden and une xpect ed tr aumat i c eventra thert han a cont i nuous ser i es of eve nt s . ” Ca m p b e ll , 724 F. Supp. at441. T he judge then hed ged his E rie b e t b y c o n tin u in g , H o w ev er, ev en w ere this c o u rto f the v iew tha t th e M issi ssipp i Su p rem e C o u rt w o u ld a llo w third -p a rty m e n tal d istre ss re c o v e ry in th e a b se n c e o f a sp e c ific tr aumat i c eve nt , i ti s thi s court ’ s o pini on thats uch r ecove ry w oul d notbe perm i t t ed w i thouta s peci f i c and s er i ous phys i cal i nj ury t o anotherw i th w hom a pl ai nt i f f s har es a cl os e r el at i ons hi p. I d. a t 4 4 1 -4 4 2 ; s ee Erie R. R. Co. v. Tom pk ins , 3 0 4 U . S . 6 4 (19 3 8 ). ¶42. L at erc our t s ha ve mi s cons trued Ca m p b e ll i n anotherw ay. B eca us e Ca m p b e ll w as an i s s ue of f i r s ti m pr es s i on – of

w het her a t hi r d party can r ecove rf orm ent al di s tr es s i n the abs ence of

a s peci f i c tr aumat i c eve nt– the Ca m p b e ll courtf

i r s ttr ace d the l aw f

orw hether a p l ai nti ff

w ho w as di r ect l

y ha r med b y the de f

e nd a nt ’ s ne gl i ge nc e c a n r e c ov e rment al

### 22

d istre ss d a m a g e s. T h e c o u rt th e n sh ifted to e x p lain th e law a t issu e , the law fo r th ird p a rty r ecove ry f

orm ent al di s tr es s w hen the thi r d party’ s f ami l y m emberw as di r ect l y harm ed. T he Ca m p b e ll o p in io n c o n tain s tw o d istin c t p a rts, a n d e a c h p a rt o f th e o p in io n trac e s d iffe re n t, yetr el at ed, ar eas of

the l aw . H ow ever , cour t s have m i s i nt erpr et ed and m i xed up Ca m p b e ll ’s tre a tm e n t o f th e tw o d istin c t ar e a s o f th e law . C o u rts h a v e im p lan ted la n g u a g e d e a lin g so lely w ith d ir e c t p la in tif

f r e c o v e ry to th ir d p a rt y p la in tif f r e c o v e ry . Ca m

p b e ll s t at es , i n r ef

er ence t o di r ect - pl ai nt i f

f r ecove r y: T hus , a per s on s ubj ect ed t o the negl i gentactof another can r ecove rm ent al di s tr es s damages i f

thatdi s tr es s r es ul t s i n a med i cal l y cogni zabl e condi t i on f orw hi ch tr eatm enti s requi r ed; i f , r atherthan mer el y negl i gent , the defend ant’ s con du cti s m al i ci ous , i nt ent i onalorgr os s l y negl igent , rec o v ery m ay be ha d des pi t e the abs ence o f a ny phys i cal m ani f es t at i on of

the emoti on al d i st r es s of

t he af f ect ed i ndi vi dual s o l ong as the conduc ti s s uch thatthe r es ul t i ng emot i onal di s tr es s w as r eas onabl y f or es eea bl e. Ca m p b e ll , 7 2 4 F . S u p p . a t 4 4 0 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). Ca m p b e ll appends thatthe s t andar d f or d ir e c t p la in tif

f r e c o v e ry is s im p ly th e “ g a rd e n v a ri e ty ” n e g lig e n c e s ta n d a rd . I d. ¶4 3 . C o u rts h a v e in ter p re ted th e ab o v e “ m a licio u s, in ten tio n a l, or g ro ss ly n e g lig e n t” la n g u a g e in th e c o n te x t o f th ir d p a rt y re c o v e ry . S u m m ers ex re l. D a w so n v . S t. A n drew ’s E pis copal School , I nc. , 759 So. 2d 1203 ( M i s s . 2000) , s t at ed, underthe i s s ue det erm i ni ng w hetherthi r d party r ecove r y survi ved summ ary j udgm ent , t hat“[ t ] he pl ai nt i f f s . . . f ai l under the p rem ises o f Ca m

p b e ll beca us e t her e i s no document ed phys i cal i nj ury t o [ the chi l d] nor i s ther e evi dence of

m al i ci ous , gr os s negl i gence on the partof [ the s chool ] . ” I

d . at1211. Moor e v. K

r ogerCo. , 800 F. Supp. 42 9 ( N . D . M i s s . 1992) , corr ect l y dr aw s the di s t i nct i on betw een the tw o part s of the Ca m p b e ll o p in io n sta tin g :

### 23

[ I ] n a di s cus s i on l eadi ng t o [ the] hol di ng, the Ca m p b e ll courttr ace d the l aw i n M i s s i s s i ppi concerni ng m ent al di s tr es s dam ages i n the abs ence of phys i cal m ani f es t at i on. T he cour tfi r s tdi s cus s ed t he l aw w i th re s pectt o the im m e d ia te v ictim , w ho, dependi ng on the mal i ci ous nes s and gr os s natur e of the negl i gence , coul d s eek r ecove ry des pi t e t he abs ence of ac tual phys i cal i nj ury.

. . . Ca m p b e ll ’s d isc u ss io n o f g ro ss ly n e g lig e n t b e h a v io r w a s in c o n ju n c tio n w ith the emot i onal di s tr es s of the im m e d ia te v ictim . I d. at433 ( emphasi s added) . T hus , f ol l ow i ng the s am e reasoni ng pr om ul gat ed by Moo re , m al i ci ous and gr os s negl i gence appl i es w her e t he i m m edi at e vi ct i m i s s eeki ng r ecove ry, and a s o u tlin e d a b o v e , Ca m p b e ll ’s h o ld in g a p p lies to fa c t s itu a tio n s w h e re th e re is n o sp e c ific traum at i c even t . In the inst ant cas e, A cey is no tthe im m ediat e vict i m , and there w as a s peci f i c t r aumat i c eve nt : A . A . t ouched the pow erw i r e and w as el ectr ocut ed. T her ef or e, Ca m p b e ll does notappl y, and S u m m ers d o e s n o t p ro v id e a v a lid a rg u m e n t fo r A c e y to re c o v e r. RANDOL P H, P . J . , CHANDL ER AND P I ER CE , J J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON. L AMAR , J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶44. I do not agr ee that – at thi s s t age of thi s pr ocee di ng and on thi s r ecor d – w e can f i nd as a m att er o f l aw that A ce y ca n n o t r ec o v er a s a b y stan d er. ¶4 5 . A s the m ajority p o ints o u t, there are g en era ll y three fac tors that this C o u rtco n side rs to d eterm ine if a d efe n d an t sho u ld rea so n ab ly fo rese e inju ry to a b y stan d er: ( 1) W hetherpl ai nt i f

f w as l ocat ed nea rthe s cene of the ac ci dentas contr as t ed w i th one w ho w as a di s t ance aw ay fr om i t . ( 2) W hetherthe s hock r es ul t ed f r om a di r ectemot i onal i m pactupon pl ai nt i ff fr om the s ens ory and cont empora neous observan ce of the acc i den t , as contr ast ed w i th l earni ng of the a c c id e n t fro m o th e rs a fte r its o c c u rre n c e . (3 ) W h e th e r p lain tiff an d th e v ictim w er e cl os el y r el at ed, as contr as t ed w i th an abse nce of any re l at i ons hi p orthe pr es ence of

onl y a di s t antr el at i ons hi p.4 4 1 P .2 d 9 1 2 (C a l. 1 9 6 8 ). 6 

### 24 E n tex, Inc. v. McG u ire , 414 So. 2d 437, 444 ( M i s s . 1982) . B utthe m aj or i ty then pr ocee ds t o tr e a tt h e s e t h r e e f

a c t o r s a s a b r i g h t - l i n e ru l e th a ta b s o l u t e l y b a r s r e c o v e ry . Th i s , i n my v iew , is an inco rrect i n terpretati o n o f E ntex . I n f act , the E ntex C our tf

avor abl y quot ed the Supr eme C our tof Cal i f

orni a i n D il

lon v. L egg , w h e re the C a lifo rn ia C o u rt sta ted th a t co u rts

6 s houl d “t ake i nt o acc ount ” the f act or s quot ed above w hen eva l uat i ng w hethera bys t ander w as a fore see ab le pla in tiff – w h ich is a far cry from tr ea ti n g the fa ctors a s “m an d atory re q u ir e m e n ts ” th a t a b y s ta n d e r m u s t m e e t. E ntex , 4 1 4 S o . 2 d a t 4 4 4 . ¶46. I m por t ant l y, a cl os err evi ew of the ana l ys i s i n D il

lon re v e a ls th a t th e se fa c to rs a re to be eva l uat ed as a w hol e: T h e e v alua ti o n o f th ese fac tors w il l i n d icate the [d] eg ree o f th e d efe n d an t’ s f or es eea bi l i ty: obvi ous l y def endanti s m or e l i kel y t o f or es ee thata mot herw ho obs erves an ac ci dentaf f ect i ng herchi l d w i l l s uf f erharm than t o f

or et el l that a stran g er w itn ess w il l do so . S im il arly, th e d eg ree o f forese ea b il ity o f th e third per s on’ s i nj ury i s f

argr eat eri n the ca s e of hi s cont empora neous obs ervance of the ac ci dentthan thati n w hi ch he s ubs equent l y l earns of i t . T he def endant i s m ore l i kely t o for esee that shock t o the nearby, w i tnessi ng m otherw i l l cause p h y sical ha rm than to an ti cipa te th at so m eo n e d ist an t f rom the a cc iden t w ill s uf f erm or e than a t empora r y emot i onal r eac t i on. A l l thes e el ement s , of cour s e, shad e i nto each o ther; the fi xing of o bli gati on , i nti m at el y ti ed int o the f act s, depends upon eac h cas e. D il lon , 4 4 1 P .2 d a t 9 2 0 -2 1 . ¶4 7. H er e, i t i s un di s pu t e d tha t f a c t or thr e e w e i gh s he a vi l y i n A c e y’ s f a vo r . A nd I f

i nd that , as thi s cas e curr ent l y s t ands , f act or s one a nd tw o ar e neutr al atbes t . T her e i s t es t i m ony i n the r ecor d thatA cey a r r i ved atthe ac ci dents cene w i thi n s even mi nut es , w her e her daught erw as st i l l exper i enci ng t he ef f ect s of the s ever e el ectr i cal s hock. Speci f i cal l y, A cey

### 25

tes tified v ia a ffid a v it th a t sh e o b se rv e d sm o k e c o m in g fro m h e r d a u g h ter ’s s k in , the sk in f l aki ng and turni ng gr ay, h er dau ght er ’ s f i nger s m i s s i ng and bones expos ed, and thats he coul d s m el l the odorof

burni ng f

l es h – i n otherw or ds , the i nj ury w as s t i l l oc curr i ng. A l s o, A cey’ s daught erhad notbeen r emoved f r om the ac ci dents i t e w hen s he arr i ved – s he w as b e in g h e ld b y o n e o f t h e fa rm e rs o n th e p la tf o rm o f t h e c o tto n -p ic k e r. ¶4 8 . I ag ree w ith Ju sti ce C o lem an that “the q u esti o n o f w h e th e r a leg a l d u ty o f du e c are e x i s t s i s o n e o f

l a w a n d n o tf

a c t . ” Bu tth a td e t e r mi n a t i o n c a n n o tb e ma d e i n a v a c u u m, b e c a u se it i s a x io m a tic th a t th e e x iste n c e o f a d u ty n e c e ss a rily d e p e n d s o n th e sp e c ific f a c ts o f e a c h c a se . A n d fo r p u rp o se s o f a s u m m a ry -ju d g m e n t rev iew , w e are to v iew th e fa c ts in the l i ghtm os tfa vor abl e t o A cey. I f w e do as i ns truct ed by t he E ntex C our tand s i m pl y t ake thes e f act or s “i nt o acc ount , ” I cannotj oi n the maj or i ty’ s concl us i on thatA cey may not re c o v e r a s a m a tte r o f l a w . ¶49. M or eover , I not e that vi r tual l y al l of t he author i ty r el i ed on by the m aj or i ty i s f r om fed e ra l court s m aki ng E r ie gu e s s e s a s t o the c urr e nts t a t e of M i s s i s s i pp i by s t a nd e rl a w . So the maj or i ty’ s s t at ementthat“M i s s i s s i ppi l aw has been c ons i s t entr egar di ng bys t ander re c o v e ry fo r e m o tio n a l- d istre ss d a m a g e s” is d isin g e n u o u s. (M a j. O p . ¶1 9 ). T h e m a

jo rity r el i es heavi l y on f

eder al courtopi ni ons w axi ng el oquent l y on M i s s i s s i ppi bys t anderl aw i ns t ead of

actual l y anal yzi ng the D il lon fact ors as E ntex i ns truct s . T her e i s s i m pl y not hi ng i n E ntex orany of

thi s Court ’ s otherpr ece dentthatc at egor i cal l y ba r s A cey’ s r ecove ry her e. ¶50. A s a f

i nal not e, i t i s i nt er es t i ng t o m e that the m aj or i ty s pends the f i r s t s even pa ges of i t s anal ys i s poi nt i ng outal l t he r eas ons I am w r ong i ns t ead of anal yzi ng the ca s e athand, r el yi ng pr i nci pal l y on cas el aw fr om C al i f orni a. I do not“mi s under s t and” the appl i cat i on of

### 26

t he D il lon fa c to rs; ra th e r, I sim p ly a m n o t co n c e rn e d w ith p o st- D il lon juri sp rud en c e in C a lif o rn ia . M y co ncern i s ou r b y sta n d e r liab ili ty ju risp ru d e n c e , an d th e fa c t re m a in s th a t th is C our tneverhas s ai d – unt i l t oday – thatthe D il lon fa c to rs a re “ m a n d a to ry re q u ir e m e n ts .” ¶ 5 1 . I s tre ss a g a in th a t E ntex i ns truct s thi s C our tt o t ake the D il lon fa c to rs “ in to a c c o u n t.” M y r es pons e t o the m aj or i ty’ s st at ementt hatI a m over l ooki ng “al l the M i s s i s s i ppi cas el aw thatpl ai nl y r ej ect s ” my posi t i on i s s i m pl e: “W hatl aw ?” Si m pl y beca us e the maj or i t y has been a bl e t o l ocat e s om e ca s es i n w hi ch bys t anderr ecove ry w as ul t i m at el y deni ed does not m ean thatou r j uri s prudence – pr oper l y i nt erpr et ed –tr ans f or m s the D il

lon fa c to rs in to ma n d a t o ry r e q u i r e me n t s o rc a t e g o r i c a l l y b a r s r e c o v e ry h e r e . Th e ma j o r i ty ’ s c o n c e rn th a tmy rati o n ale w il l “no d o u b t r esu ltin infinit e li ab il ity ” is si m p ly u n fou n d ed . I sa y n o thing m o re than thatourcurr entj ur i s prudence does not , as a mat t erof l aw , barA cey’ s r ecove ry her e. ¶ 5 2 . F o r th e se re a so n s, I w o u ld d ism iss th is in ter lo c u to ry a p p e a l an d a llo w th e p a rties to p ro c e e d w ith d is c o v e ry a n d tr ia l. DI CKI NS ON, P . J . , KI TC HENS AND KI NG, J J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON.