Court Opinion

ID: 9739738
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:20:16.058714+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:13.684439
License: Public Domain

White, J.,
dissenting.
Although I believe that the Andreasens (at the very least, Mike and Tina) fall squarely within the analytical framework of James v. Lieb, 111 Neb. 47, 375 N.W.2d 109 (1985), and should thus be entitled to recovery, one need not even reach the application of those factors to find fault with the majority *78opinion. Instead, I dissent because the majority has ignored this court’s standard of review on an appeal from a summary judgment.
The decisions of this court are full of examples of the strict standard applied when we review a summary judgment. Summary judgment is to be granted only when the pleadings, depositions, admissions, stipulations, and affidavits in the record disclose that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact or as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from those facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
A party moving for summary judgment has the burden to show that no issue of material fact exists and must furnish sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law if the evidence presented for summary judgment remains uncontroverted.
Moreover, we have also frequently held that “[sjummary judgment is an extreme remedy and should be awarded only when an issue is clear beyond all doubt.” State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Victor, 232 Neb. 942, 943, 442 N.W.2d 880, 881 (1989). Accord American Community Stores Corp. v. Newman, 232 Neb. 434, 441 N.W.2d 154 (1989).
The majority’s holding flies squarely in the face of the preceding rules, denying the Andreasens any chance at trial when there was at least one issue of material fact in controversy — the severity of the emotional distress suffered by Mike and Tina.
Before turning to Mike and Tina’s causes of action, I first address the majority’s treatment of the Andreasen children’s causes of action. Unless it is established that the parents did not suffer the required “severe” emotional distress (a fact I do not believe has been shown), it is of no moment that the children’s distress was of a lesser degree than their parents’. Although the majority determines that the children’s recovery is precluded because they were not “bystanders” within the meaning of James, this holding seems based on a factual finding, namely that these siblings of the deceased child, especially due to their young age, could not suffer great enough loss to be “foreseeable.” I see no reason why the children could not, just *79as easily, be considered as within the ambit of the James analysis.
Contrary to the majority’s assertions, I believe that familial loss and grief (even among young children) are far too delicate and subtle to be decided by this court as matters of law. The foreseeability of the children’s distress is a material issue of fact in controversy. Giving the children the benefit of all reasonable inferences from the evidence, I believe that this issue was inappropriate for summary judgment.
The preceding problem is magnified in the case of Mike and Tina’s causes of action. The majority, faced with a material fact in controversy, simply makes a factual determination and denies the parents the benefits of a trial.
Admitting that both Mike and Tina qualify as bystanders, the majority focuses on the severity of their emotional distress, ultimately concluding that as a matter of law Mike and Tina did not present evidence showing they suffered an emotional injury sufficiently severe to withstand a motion for summary judgment. This statement runs directly contrary to the record. Following an evaluation of the Andreasens, a psychologist with a Ph.D. concluded that Mike and Tina had suffered from “severe emotional distress.”
The endurability of the distress suffered by a plaintiff is a question for the fact finder. Nichols v. Busse, 243 Neb. 811, 503 N.W.2d 173 (1993). The majority, however, disregards the evidence presented by the Andreasens, apparently feeling it appropriate to weigh, on appeal, the credibility of expert testimony.
The majority’s choice of case law to bolster its holding is inappropriate. In both Sell v. Mary Lanning Memorial Hosp., 243 Neb. 266, 498 N.W.2d 522 (1993), and Parrish v. Omaha Pub. Power Dist., 242 Neb. 731, 496 N.W.2d 914 (1993), the two cases principally relied upon by the majority, the records contained no evidence of severe emotional distress. In addition, in Parrish, we stated: “To avoid a summary judgment in an action for emotional distress, the record must present some evidence establishing a factual question, i.e., . . . whether [the plaintiff’s] reaction ... is ‘emotional distress’ sufficiently severe and medically significant to be actionable under *80Nebraska law.” (Emphasis supplied.) 242 Neb. at 734, 496 N.W.2d at 916. The Andreasens, unlike the plaintiffs in Sell and Parrish, have made such a showing. I simply find no escape from the conclusion that at least one issue of material fact existed in this case, and thus, summary judgment was inappropriate.
Although the erroneous granting of summary judgment is sufficient to require a reversal of the district court’s decision, I wish to take issue with one final point from the majority opinion, the contention that nightmares, headaches, loss of sleep, and nausea are, as a matter of law, insufficient indicators of severe or “extraordinary” emotional trauma to entitle the sufferer to recovery. If, as in this case, expert testimony corroborates the alleged severity of the distress suffered and there is evidence that the distress is a result of the defendant’s negligence, it should be for the jury to decide whether the distress was so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it. See, Nichols, supra; Sell, supra; Parrish, supra. The decision should not be made by an appellate court checking the plaintiff’s symptoms against a laundry list of “sufficiently severe” manifestations of emotional trauma. A somewhat analogous point was raised by the dissent in Sell, in which Justice Lanphier noted that in certain limited instances, it is superfluous to require medical testimony about the depth of emotional trauma caused by an event when doing so ignores the obvious.
I reiterate my earlier point: Grief, sorrow, and emotional pain are far from predictable, uniform reactions. Thus, it should be the jury, persons not so “educated” in the antiseptic technicalities of the law, that should determine how much distress is reasonably endurable. Decisions such as Sell and the majority opinion in this case further remove the jury from this most important role. I fear that today’s decision once again extends the rift between the decisions of this court and the realities of life.
It was this court that recognized a cause of action for emotional distress. See Baylor v. Tyrrell, 111 Neb. 812, 131 N.W.2d 393 (1964). If the majority wished, it could simply write the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress out of *81existence. However, since it did not do so, the decision today is not in accord with our previous cases. I respectfully dissent.
Shanahan and Lanphier, J J., join in this dissent.