## Facts

- Kellie Grotts and her fiancé were involved in a motor vehicle accident with Gertrude Zahner.
- Grotts witnessed the accident and her fiancé’s fatal injuries.
- Grotts sued Zahner seeking damages for bystander negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) based on her contemporaneous observation of her fiancé’s injuries.

## Issues

1. Whether a fiancée who witnesses her fiancé’s fatal injuries is “closely related” to the victim for purposes of bystander NIED standing under Nevada law.
2. Whether the “closely related” element is generally a question of law determined by family status (blood or marriage) or a question of fact based on the nature and quality of the relationship.

## Decision

- The Nevada Supreme Court, sitting en banc, affirmed dismissal of Grotts’s bystander NIED claim.
- The court held that, as a general rule, “closely related” for bystander NIED standing is determined by family membership by blood or marriage, with immediate family qualifying as a matter of law.
- The court held that a fiancée is not related by blood or marriage and therefore is not “closely related” as a matter of law for bystander NIED standing.
- The court rejected the broader, relationship-quality approach suggested by a prior plurality that treated “closeness” as generally a factual question.

## Legal Principles

- Nevada bystander NIED requires: (1) proximity to the accident scene, (2) emotional injury from contemporaneous sensory observation, and (3) a close relationship to the victim.
- Standing based on the “close relationship” element is generally limited to family members related by blood or marriage; immediate family qualifies as a matter of law.
- Only in limited situations involving family relationships beyond the immediate family may a fact finder evaluate the nature and quality of the relationship to determine whether it is close enough to confer standing.
- Non-familial relationships lacking a blood-or-marriage tie may be excluded from standing as a matter of law to limit indeterminate liability and provide administrable boundaries.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed dismissal because Nevada generally confines bystander NIED standing to immediate family relationships by blood or marriage, and an engaged partner is not “closely related” within that rule.


Grotts v. Zahner, 989 P.2d 415 (Nev. 1999)