Satchfield v. R.R. Morrison & Son, Inc.
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-01563-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-06-2004 Opinion Author: Cobb, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Bystander recovery for emotional distress Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Easley, Carlson and Dickinson, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Randolph, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Graves, J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - TORTS-OTHER THAN PERSONAL INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-15-2002 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: Stephen Simpson Disposition: Granted summary judgment in favor of Appellees. Case Number: A2401-2001-00345 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | DANNY SATCHFIELD |
JOHN RANDALL SANTA CRUZ |
||
| Appellee: | R.R. MORRISON & SON, INC., PREMIUM TANK LINES, INC. AND BRUCE JORDAN, AS AGENT OF PREMIUM TANK LINES, INC. | WALTER WILLIAM DUKES TRACE D. McRANEY RONALD G. PERESICH EMILIE FISCHER WHITEHEAD MICHAEL E. WHITEHEAD |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Bystander recovery for emotional distress |
| Summary of the Facts: | While an underground gasoline tank at a Texaco Fast Lane service station was being filled, the tank overflowed and a large quantity of gasoline spilled into a nearby intersection where it ignited. The ensuing fire resulted in property damage and personal injuries, including several fatalities. Danny Satchfield, his son, Kurt, and a good friend, David Rogers, witnessed the explosion and the painful death of the victims. Satchfield filed a complaint against R.R. Morrison & Sons, Inc., the owner of the Texaco station in question, as well as Premium Tank Lines, Inc., the owner of the fuel truck, and Bruce Jordan, the operator, seeking damages for emotional shock and trauma. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment which the court granted. Satchfield appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Morrison, Premium and Jordan argue that summary judgment was proper because Satchfield, unrelated to any of the victims, cannot satisfy the elements necessary to support his claim. In determining whether a defendant has a duty of care to a bystander plaintiff one of the factors the court should consider is whether plaintiff and victim were closely related, as contrasted with an absence of any relationship or the presence of only a distance relationship. Allowing Satchfield’s claim would expose the defendants to unlimited liability. Every person who witnessed this horrible accident could bring suit. There must be some limit to foreseeability. Since Satchfield is unrelated to any of the victims of this unfortunate accident, he cannot recover. Satchfield also argues that the standard for bystander recovery for emotional distress is not applicable because the defendants are charged with willful, wanton and grossly negligent conduct. However, the scope of foreseeability does not expand as the severity of the negligence increases. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
