## Facts

- A minor child exited a school bus on Route 117 in Lancaster, Massachusetts, and was struck by a car driven by the defendant motorist.
- The school bus was owned by one defendant and operated by another defendant.
- The child’s mother lived nearby, went promptly to the scene, observed the child seriously injured, and allegedly suffered severe emotional shock with physical consequences; she died while riding in the ambulance transporting the child.
- The child’s father allegedly developed serious physical conditions and emotional distress attributed to the child’s injuries and the mother’s death, and later died.
- The parents’ estates sued the motorist, the bus owner, and the bus driver for negligence, seeking wrongful death and conscious suffering damages based on physical harm allegedly caused by emotional distress.

## Issues

1. Whether negligence liability may exist for substantial physical injury caused solely by negligently inflicted emotional distress, absent contemporaneous physical impact on the plaintiff.
2. Whether, and under what limits, a parent outside any physical “zone of danger” may recover for substantial physical harm resulting from severe emotional distress caused by negligent injury to the parent’s minor child.
3. Whether the allegations by the mother’s estate and the father’s estate satisfied those limits at the pleading stage.

## Decision

- The court abandoned the prior categorical “impact” requirement barring recovery for physical injuries arising solely from negligently caused emotional distress.
- The court recognized a limited bystander claim: a parent may recover for substantial physical harm caused by severe emotional distress from negligent injury to a minor child, even if the parent was not in physical danger, when foreseeability-based constraints are met.
- The dismissal was reversed as to the mother’s estate because her allegations described close relationship and immediate proximity to the accident’s aftermath with severe shock and resulting physical harm.
- The dismissal was affirmed as to the father’s estate because the alleged causal chain—based on the child’s injuries and the mother’s death without immediate sensory involvement in the accident or its direct aftermath—was too remote.

## Legal Principles

- Negligence may support recovery for substantial physical harm proximately caused by severe emotional distress, even without physical impact to the plaintiff.
- Foreseeability is the central inquiry, but liability for bystander emotional-distress claims must be confined by objective limits to avoid speculative and remote claims.
- In parent-bystander cases, relevant limiting conditions include:
  - a close familial relationship to the directly injured person;
  - presence at or near the scene with contemporaneous perception of the accident or its immediate aftermath; and
  - substantial physical harm attributable to the severe emotional distress.
- Whether causation and the extent of harm are proven is generally for the factfinder when the complaint alleges facts placing the plaintiff within the recognized limits.

## Conclusion

The court rejected a rigid impact prerequisite and permitted narrowly limited bystander recovery when a close family member suffers substantial physical harm from severe, foreseeable emotional distress arising from immediate involvement in the accident or its direct aftermath; the mother’s allegations met that standard, while the father’s did not due to remoteness.


Dziokonski v. Babineau, 375 Mass. 555, 380 N.E.2d 1295 (Mass. 1978)