156 Cal.App.2d 43, 9253, Reed v. Moore

Docket Nº9253
Citation156 Cal.App.2d 43, 319 P.2d 80
Opinion Judge[10] Warne
Party NameReed v. Moore
Attorney[7] Harry A. Ackley and Gordon D. Schaber for Appellant. [8] Mento, Buchler & Littlefield for Respondent.
Case DateDecember 11, 1957
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals

Page 43

156 Cal.App.2d 43

319 P.2d 80

LUCILLE REED, Appellant,

v.

EUGENE PARKER MOORE, Respondent.

Civ. No. 9253.

California Court of Appeal, Third District

Dec. 11, 1957

Page 44

COUNSEL

Harry A. Ackley and Gordon D. Schaber for Appellant. Mento, Buchler &amp Littlefield for Respondent

OPINION

WARNE, J. pro tem. [*]

This is an appeal from a judgment for defendant after the trial court had sustained a demurrer to plaintiff's complaint without leave to amend. The complaint alleged that plaintiff, a married woman, sustained injuries, suffered severe emotional strain, mental shock and fright, followed by physical injury in the form of a miscarriage as the direct and proximate result from plaintiff being an eyewitness to a collision between an automobile in which her husband was riding and an automobile driven by defendant, the collision being caused by defendant's negligence. The complaint further alleged that, at the time of the accident, plaintiff was seated in front of her place of abode approximately 130 feet from the point of impact. Upon oral argument, plaintiff's counsel stipulated that at the time of the accident plaintiff was in fear solely for her husband's safety and could not herself be considered within the zone of danger. We will treat the stipulation as an amendment to the complaint. Defendant demurred to the complaint on the ground that it failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

Plaintiff contends that recovery may be had in the instant case for emotional distress followed by physical injury, irrespective of impact upon the person of the plaintiff and irrespective of whether the emotional distress is intentionally or negligently caused. In support of her contention she cites Sloane v. Southern Calif. Ry. Co., 111 Cal. 668, 680 [32 L.R.A. 193], Medeiros v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 57 Cal.App.2d 707 , Lindley v. Knowlton, 179 Cal. 298 , and Cook v. Maier, 33 Cal.App.2d 581 . We do not agree with plaintiff. The cases are not in point and may easily be distinguished from the case at bar. In the Sloane case, supra, the defendant wrongfully deprived

Page 45

plaintiff of her ticket and thereafter, by reason of such wrongful act, excluded her from its car. The negligent act was directed to the plaintiff personally, not to a third person. In the Medeiros case, supra, the defendant negligently permitted a cleaning brush to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 practice notes
  • 56 Cal.App.4th 74, B104166, Walker v. 20th Century Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • California California Court of Appeals
    • June 30, 1997
    ...of action has been made out.' " (Amaya v. Home Ice, Fuel & Supply Co., supra, 59 Cal.2d at p. 299, fn. 2; Reed v. Moore (1957) 156 Cal.App.2d 43, 47 [319 P.2d 80]; see Laughner v. Bryne (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 904, 908 [22 Cal.Rptr.2d 671].) There are sufficient public policy and sta......
  • 68 Cal.2d 728, 7816, Dillon v. Legg
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court of California
    • June 21, 1968
    ...alleges that the plaintiff suffered emotional distress, fright or shock as a result of fear for his own safety. Reed v. Moore, 156 Cal.App.2d 43 (1957) at page 45 ().' (Italics added.) The court granted a judgment on the pleadings against the mother's count, the second cause of action, and ......
  • 88 Cal.App.4th 439, F033129, Santa Barbara Pistachio Ranch v. Chowchilla Water Dist.
    • United States
    • California California Court of Appeals
    • April 11, 2001
    ...have been anticipated or not." This section sets forth the general measure of damages for tortious wrongs. (Reed v. Moore (1957) 156 Cal.App.2d 43, 47 [319 P.2d 80]; see also Howe v. City Title Ins. Co. (1967) 255 Cal.App.2d 85, 86-87 [63 Cal.Rptr. 119] [negligence case]; Coats v. Atch......
  • 23 Cal.Rptr. 131, Civ. 20099, Amaya v. Home Ice
    • United States
    • California California Court of Appeals
    • July 3, 1962
    ...of rejection, that plaintiff must fear for his own safety rather than for that of another, finds expression in Reed v. Moore (1957), 156 Cal.App.2d 43, 319 P.2d 80 and similar decisions; 10 yet some of the cases cited in Reed, some subsequent California cases, as we shall point out, and som......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • 56 Cal.App.4th 74, B104166, Walker v. 20th Century Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • California California Court of Appeals
    • June 30, 1997
    ...of action has been made out.' " (Amaya v. Home Ice, Fuel & Supply Co., supra, 59 Cal.2d at p. 299, fn. 2; Reed v. Moore (1957) 156 Cal.App.2d 43, 47 [319 P.2d 80]; see Laughner v. Bryne (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 904, 908 [22 Cal.Rptr.2d 671].) There are sufficient public policy and sta......
  • 68 Cal.2d 728, 7816, Dillon v. Legg
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court of California
    • June 21, 1968
    ...alleges that the plaintiff suffered emotional distress, fright or shock as a result of fear for his own safety. Reed v. Moore, 156 Cal.App.2d 43 (1957) at page 45 ().' (Italics added.) The court granted a judgment on the pleadings against the mother's count, the second cause of action, and ......
  • 88 Cal.App.4th 439, F033129, Santa Barbara Pistachio Ranch v. Chowchilla Water Dist.
    • United States
    • California California Court of Appeals
    • April 11, 2001
    ...have been anticipated or not." This section sets forth the general measure of damages for tortious wrongs. (Reed v. Moore (1957) 156 Cal.App.2d 43, 47 [319 P.2d 80]; see also Howe v. City Title Ins. Co. (1967) 255 Cal.App.2d 85, 86-87 [63 Cal.Rptr. 119] [negligence case]; Coats v. Atch......
  • 23 Cal.Rptr. 131, Civ. 20099, Amaya v. Home Ice
    • United States
    • California California Court of Appeals
    • July 3, 1962
    ...of rejection, that plaintiff must fear for his own safety rather than for that of another, finds expression in Reed v. Moore (1957), 156 Cal.App.2d 43, 319 P.2d 80 and similar decisions; 10 yet some of the cases cited in Reed, some subsequent California cases, as we shall point out, and som......
  • Request a trial to view additional results