Court Opinion

ID: 9478358
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:47:24.160916+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:46:23.628854
License: Public Domain

PATRICK E. HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part, and dissenting in part:
I join the majority’s fine opinion with respect to Part I, Part II, and the disposition of the Torres question in Part III. I must, however, depart from the majority’s analysis of California tort law in Part III.
King’s children wish to recover for the negligent infliction of emotional distress. California law recognizes two categories of such claims. The first consists of those claims arising under Dillon v. Legg, 68 Cal.2d 728, 69 Cal.Rptr. 72, 441 P.2d 912 (1968). Dillon permits recovery by those who suffer “emotional trauma” as the result of witnessing a tort against another. See Ochoa v. Superior Court, 39 Cal.3d 159, 216 Cal.Rptr. 661, 703 P.2d 1, 5 (1985). The California Supreme Court has, however, limited Dillon to cases in which the plaintiff witnesses both the defendant’s tortious conduct and the resulting injury: “when there is observation of the defendant’s conduct and the ... injury and contemporaneous awareness the defendant’s conduct or lack thereof is causing harm ..., recovery is permitted.” 216 Cal.Rptr. at 668, 703 P.2d at 8.
The second category of claims consists of those made by “direct victims,” and arising out of Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospital, 27 Cal.3d 916, 167 Cal.Rptr. 831, 616 P.2d 813 (1980). In Molien, the California Supreme Court permitted recovery by a man against a doctor who had negligently misdiagnosed the man’s wife as having a venereal disease. The Molien Court held that the plaintiff could recover because he was a “direct victim” of the doctor’s negligence, for the doctor had instructed the wife to inform her husband of the doctor’s diagnosis. Although the California courts have not articulated an exact definition of “direct victim” status, they have made clear that relief under Molien is available only if the defendant’s action is “by its very nature” directed at both the plaintiff and the immediate victim. Ochoa, 216 Cal.Rptr. at 679, 703 P.2d at 10.
King’s children have not stated a claim under either of these theories. They did not witness the allegedly negligent acts of O.tasco, and so do not qualify as Dillon plaintiffs. They have in no way alleged that Otasco knew or intended that its acts affect them; they thus have not made out a claim that Otasco’s acts were “by their very nature” directed against them, and so do not qualify as Molien plaintiffs.
The majority, however, generalizes Mol-ien to permit recovery when emotional injury is negligently caused, foreseeable, and severe. As a result, the majority concludes that the children’s allegation survives a motion to dismiss. The majority’s test eviscerates the doctrinal categories established by Dillon and Molien, and eliminates the requirement that a Molien plaintiff be a direct victim. That victims falling outside the Molien and Dillon categories cannot recover may seem illogical. Members of the California Supreme Court have themselves said so. See Ochoa, 216 Cal.Rptr. at 674-75, 703 P.2d at 14-16 (Grodin, J., concurring); 216 Cal.Rptr. at 682-83, 703 P.2d at 22-23 (Bird, C.J., dissenting). It may perhaps be desirable to dispense with the “artificial distinctions” arising out of Molien and Dillon. If so, it may perhaps be desirable to do so along the lines developed by the majority. Chief Justice Bird so suggested in her Ochoa dissent. 216 Cal.Rptr. at 683, 703 P.2d at 23. But Chief Justice Bird made her suggestion in dissent — indeed, authored her dissent— precisely because the Ochoa majority refused to do what she then urged and what the Fifth Circuit now does. The Ochoa majority preserved the rules of Molien and Dillon. See 216 Cal.Rptr. at 674-76, 703 P.2d at 14-16 (Grodin, J., concurring) (discussing future of the Molien and Dillon rules).
Pool v. City of Oakland, 42 Cal.3d 1051, 232 Cal.Rptr. 528, 728 P.2d 1163 (Cal.1986), on which the majority relies, in no way alters this analysis. In Pool, the plaintiff sued Safeway for negligently prosecuting *446him. There can be no doubt that the plaintiff was the direct — in fact, the only — victim of Safeway’s negligence. Pool did not involve a “third-party plaintiff” of the sort present in Dillon, Molten, and the instant case.
Because I am unable to reconcile the majority’s opinion in this case with the Ochoa majority’s clear rejection of Chief Justice Bird’s position, I respectfully dissent.