Court Opinion

ID: 9763123
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:37:03.757674+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:39.534120
License: Public Domain

CIRILLO, Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. It is my opinion that the trial court properly dismissed the appellants’ claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress and to do otherwise would be in direct opposition with the law of this Commonwealth.
In her complaint appellant Robin Love (“Love”) alleges that she accompanied her mother (“decedent”) to her appointment with appellee Dr. Cramer on August 23,1988 and that she was present when Dr. Cramer advised decedent that further tests and hospitalization were unnecessary. Love also alleges that she was present with her mother when she died one and one-half months later. Love’s claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress stems from her presence at a discussion between Dr. Cramer and decedent and her presence at decedent’s death.
*240Love’s claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress is without merit as it does not fall within the parameters established by the precedent of this Commonwealth. In Sinn v. Burd, 486 Pa. 146, 404 A.2d 672 (1979), the supreme court addressed the issue of when a claimant should be permitted to recover damages for negligently caused mental distress. In this seminal case the supreme court adopted a three factor test to determine whether the injury to the plaintiff was reasonably foreseeable:
(1) Whether the plaintiff was located near the scene of the accident as contrasted with one who was a distance away from it;
(2) Whether the shock resulted from a direct emotional impact upon plaintiff from the sensory and contemporaneous observance of the accident, as contrasted with learning of the accident from others after its occurrence; and
(3) Whether plaintiff and the victim were closely related as contrasted with an absence of any relationship or the presence of only a distant relationship. .
Sinn v. Burd, 486 Pa. 146, 171, 404 A.2d 672, 685 (1979).
Thé Sinn court held that the plaintiff/father, who was not located at the scene of his child’s accident and whose emotional distress was not a result of contemporaneous observance of the accident, could not recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress.
In Mazzagatti v. Everingham, 512 Pa. 266, 516 A.2d 672 (1986), the court was once again faced with a case where a parent did not witness the accident itself, but arrived shortly afterwards and, subsequently, sought damages under the theory of negligent infliction of emotional distress. In Mazzagatti, after reviewing the foreseeability test enacted in Sinn, the supreme court stated that it had confined its holding “solely to those cases in which plaintiff alleges psychic injury as a result of actually witnessing the defendant’s negligent act.” Id., 512 Pa. at 276, 516 A.2d at 677, quoting Sinn, 486 Pa. at 166-167 n. 15, 404 A.2d at 683 n. 15 (emphasis added).
*241This court has addressed the elements which a plaintiff must demonstrate in order to substantiate a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. We have also confirmed that in order to successfully allege a claim for emotional distress a plaintiff must witness the accident in issue. See Halliday v. Beltz, 356 Pa.Super. 375, 514 A.2d 906 (1986) (decedent’s husband and daughter who brought medical malpractice claim alleging negligent infliction of emotional distress did not meet the personal observation requirements of Sinn where they never actually viewed any surgery, though they were present in the hospital while procedures were performed). See also Tackett v. Encke, 353 Pa.Super. 349, 509 A.2d 1310 (1986) (mother who claimed that she was injured emotionally as a result of witnessing, over time, her son’s reaction to a negligently undetected pulmonary fat embolism did not witness the negligent treatment, and thus, mother could not recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress.)
Appellants’ claim is evidently defective in that it does not meet the requirements of the foreseeability test. Love can reasonably allege that she suffered emotional distress as the result of observing her mother’s death, but these events occurred approximately seven weeks after the alleged negligence of Dr. Cramer. Thus, Love’s alleged emotional distress is not the result of the “sensory and contemporaneous observance of the accident [incident].” Therefore, without fulfilling the requisite test, appellants fall short of stating a claim for which relief may be granted.