The recent decision in Wilson v. Southern California Edison Co. provides greater clarity to the California rule permitting claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress by direct victims who do not suffer a physical injury. Direct victim cases are those in which the plaintiff’s claim of emotional distress is not based upon witnessing an injury to someone else, but rather upon the violation of a duty owed directly to the plaintiff. Wilson holds that a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim will not survive unless the alleged breach of duty threatens an actual physical injury.

Negligent infliction of emotional distress claims in California have bewildered both the plaintiff and defense bars for decades. Determining the set of circumstances sufficient to permit recovery for serious emotional distress caused by the negligence of another when there is no physical injury has proved to be a difficult task. While some states draw a bright-line rule requiring a physical injury as a predicate for a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim, a rule intended to reduce the danger of false claims for pure emotional distress, this is not the rule in California.

Originally published in Law360 on March 12, 2015.