## Facts

- Gretchen McDaniel was making donuts at home with her minor daughter, Alaina McDaniel, when a pot of cooking oil caught fire.
- Gretchen tried to extinguish the fire using a home fire extinguisher manufactured by Kidde Residential and Fire Co., but the extinguisher allegedly failed to discharge.
- Gretchen handed the extinguisher to Alaina and sent her toward the front of the home.
- Gretchen then attempted to carry the pot of burning oil through a laundry room toward an exterior door, dropped it, and suffered severe burns to her face.
- Alaina did not see the moment her mother was burned, but the record contained conflicting evidence about whether Alaina was close enough to hear, smell, or otherwise sense the injury as it occurred.
- After the incident, Alaina experienced ongoing nightmares, fear of flames, and anxiety and tension, but she did not obtain medical treatment for these symptoms.
- Gretchen sued Kidde for negligence, and Alaina asserted a separate claim for emotional distress.
- Kidde moved for summary judgment on Alaina’s emotional-distress claim.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Pennsylvania law, Alaina produced sufficient evidence that she contemporaneously perceived her mother’s injury (even if she did not see it) to allow a bystander emotional-distress claim to proceed.
2. Whether Alaina’s reported nightmares, fear, and anxiety created a triable issue on the severity of her alleged emotional harm despite the absence of medical treatment.

## Decision

- The court denied Kidde’s motion for summary judgment as to Alaina’s emotional-distress claim.
- The court held that the summary-judgment record contained disputed facts on Alaina’s proximity to, and sensory awareness of, the injury-producing event.
- The court further held that the nature and extent of Alaina’s claimed emotional harm presented questions that could not be resolved as a matter of law on the existing record.

## Legal Principles

- On summary judgment, a court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and may not resolve credibility disputes or choose between competing inferences.
- Under Pennsylvania bystander negligent infliction of emotional distress doctrine, a plaintiff generally must show a close relationship to the injured person and contemporaneous perception of the injury-producing event; whether the plaintiff perceived the event can turn on disputed facts about what the plaintiff heard, saw, or otherwise sensed at the time.
- When evidence supports competing accounts about contemporaneous perception and the severity of distress, those issues are typically for the factfinder rather than disposition as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

McDaniel v. Kidde Residential and Fire Co. held that summary judgment was not appropriate on the minor child’s emotional-distress claim because factual disputes remained about whether she was close enough to contemporaneously perceive her mother’s burn injury and about the seriousness of her alleged emotional harm.


McDaniel v. Kidde Residential and Fire Co., 2015 WL 1326332 (2015)