Opinion ID: 4566362
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Thomas Coward’s Bystander NIED Claim

Text: [¶30] Here, the summary judgment record demonstrates that, at the time of the injury-producing event—the rebar falling on Philip—Thomas heard a “loud bang” followed by screaming and then ran to the scene. Although Thomas did not see or become aware of the exact nature of the injury-producing event or the injuries inflicted on Philip at the moment they occurred, he responded immediately and arrived “within seconds” to witness his severely injured son, after which he attempted to keep his son alive for approximately thirty to fifty minutes. Thus, Thomas immediately responded to the scene after hearing the screaming, without being informed by others of what had transpired. In short, although Thomas was not instantaneously aware that the rebar had fallen and 25 inflicted severe injuries on his son, his perception of the injury-producing event and “contemporaneous involvement in all that went on,” Purty, 551 A.2d at 860, in the immediate aftermath of the rebar falling on Philip was “qualitatively and quantitatively different” than that emotional distress suffered by a bystander who perceives a close relative’s injuries or pain and suffering away and apart from the accident scene, see Groves, 729 N.E.2d at 571, 573; Corso, 406 A.2d at 302, 307; Acosta, 868 P.2d at 673-75; cf. Cameron, 610 A.2d at 280, 284-85, or after having been called to the scene by another, cf. Eskin, 262 S.W.3d at 739.