 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Dennison10/11/2005
cause the no fault law was "in derogation of principles of common law tort liability, must be strictly construed . . . ." Id. at 8, 881 P.2d at 495 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Despite the fact that the Smiths had not been involved in the accident, it was determined " ased on the analysis of [other] authorities . . . that, if the Smiths had been witnesses to the event that caused Christopher's death, they would have . . . independent . . . claims[.]" Id. at 13, 881 P.2d at 500. Thus, on a claim for emotional distress, this court indicated that not only one involved in an accident but also one who was a witness to an accident could assert an independent claim. See infra. In adopting this "witness" exception to the requirement that the plaintiffs' accidental harm occur "in" the accident, this court also seemingly acknowledged a corollary to the witness exception that included a claim of one "timely present at the immediate scene of the accident." Id. at 13, 881 P.2d at 500 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In the context of the witness exception adoption, this court said:
It is undisputed that the Smiths did not witness the accident nor were they "timely present at the immediate scene of the accident." [Crabtree v. State Farm Ins., 632 So. 2d 736, 745 n.19 (La. 1994)]. Thus, the cases relied upon by the appellees are inapposite here.
Based on the analysis of the authorities cited above, we adopt the proposition that if the Smiths had been witnesses to the event that caused Christopher's death, they would have non-derivative and wholly independent [negligent infliction of emotional distress] claims that would trigger separate single limits under the policy as to each proven claim.
Id. (emphasis in original and emphases added). Under such a corollary, "the court recognize a cause of action for witnessing serious injury to a close relation in either viewing the event causing the injury or coming onto the scene of the event soon thereafter." Id. at 13 n.15, 881 P.2d 500 n.13 (citing Lejeune v. Rayne Branch Hosp., 556 So. 2d 559 (La. 1990)) (emphasis added). Based on the passages above and as the circuit court in the instant case noted, "the rule espoused by Lawrence . . . does not preclude as a matter of law the assertion of an independent claim for emotional distress where the claimant did not witness the collision itself but was 'timely present' thereafter at the accident scene."
In recognizing that the no fault statute must be strictly construed, an exception to the requirement that accidental harm must be sustained "in" the motor vehicle accident was approved for familial witnesses to accidents. That policy and logic warrant the same treatment under the law for one who witnesses the accident involving a relative and one who timely arrives "at the immediate scene" of the accident involving a relative, in light of the tort's objective of independently protecting against "serious mental distress." Rodrigues v. State, 52 Haw. 156, 173, 472 P.2d 509, 520 (1970). No new objections can be raised reasonably to the recognition of a claim of one timely on the scene than would exist with respect to a witness to an accident. The safeguards against disproportionate verdicts for family witnesses timely on the scene of an accident would be the same as "in innumerable other negligence cases where a 'reasonable [person]' standard and general tort principles are applied[.]" Id. at 175 n.8, 472 P.2d at 521 n.8.
The majority maintains, however, that the facts of this case do not fit into the rubric of "'coming onto the scene of the event soon thereafter,' . . . as discussed in Crabtree and Lejeune ." Majority opinion at 18 n.8. Crabtree, ho
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|