STEVEN SMITH and SALLY SMITH, Appellants, v. JOHN CLOUGH, as Administrator for Estate of YVONNE LYNN CLOUGH, Respondent
Smith v. Clough
Young, C. J., Steffen, J., and Zenoff, Sr. J., concur.
STEVEN SMITH and SALLY SMITH, Appellants, v. JOHN CLOUGH, as Administrator for Estate of YVONNE LYNN CLOUGH, Respondent.
STEVEN SMITH and SALLY SMITH, Appellants, v. JOHN CLOUGH, as Administrator for Estate of YVONNE LYNN CLOUGH, Respondent.
No. 19657
August 29, 1990
796 P.2d 592
Michael J. Morrison, Reno, for Appellants.
Laxalt and Nomura, Reno, for Respondent.
The Honorable Cliff Young, Chief Justice, appointed The Honorable David Zenoff, Senior Justice, to sit in the place of The Honorable John Mowbray, Justice. Nev. Const, art. 6, § 19; SCR 10.
OPINION
By the Court,
Springer, J.:
Appellants Steven and Sally Smith (the Smiths) have alleged that Yvonne Clough was drag racing with another car when her car veered out of control and crashed through the front of the Smiths' home. The Smiths were in their back yard at the time of the accident. When they heard a loud crash, they ran to the front of their property where they observed extensive damage to their yard and house, and saw a stranger's body (Clough's) on the walkway. Clough's car had broken through the Smiths' fence, torn up their front yard, and crashed upside-down into their living room. A doctor at the scene determined that Clough was dead.
The Smiths filed a complaint against Clough's husband, respondent John Clough, in his capacity as administrator of her estate. They sought damages, including punitive damages, for negligent infliction of emotional distress, loss of consortium, and negligent entrustment. Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment. The district court concluded that, pursuant to NRCP 56, no genuine issue of material fact remained for the court to decide and that respondent was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, it granted respondent's motion. For the reasons set forth below, we aifirm the district court's decision.
On appeal, the Smiths' primary contention is that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of respondent with regard to their claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. They contend that they were direct victims of Clough's negligence because they heard the crash which damaged their home; they saw the damage to their home; they suffered emotional distress as a result of seeing the damage; and their emotional distress was a foreseeable result of Clough's negligence.
We reject the Smiths' contention and decline their invitation to follow certain case law from other jurisdictions which they claim is in their favor. Despite the Smiths' characterization otherwise, theirs is quite clearly a bystander plaintiff case.
Currently, the law in Nevada regarding negligent infliction of emotional distress to bystanders is governed by two lines of cases, those involving emotional distress arising from damage to a plaintiff's property, see, e.g., Merluzzi v. Larson, 96 Nev. 409, 610 P.2d 739 (1980), and those involving emotional distress arising from harm to another person, see, e.g., State v. Eaton, 101 Nev. 705, 710 P.2d 1370 (1985). We believe the better rule is to allow recovery only in cases which pertain to emotional distress arising from harm to another person, and not in cases, such as the one before us, which pertain to emotional distress arising from property damage.
Having concluded that appellants' remaining contentions lack merit, we hereby affirm the district court's order.
Young, C. J., Steffen, J., and Zenoff, Sr. J., concur.
We note that the Smiths cannot recover under either line of existing Nevada case law. Their claim is premised on emotional distress arising from property damage, so it does not fall within the rule of Eaton. Moreover, although the Smiths did hear the crash which damaged their home, they were not direct participants in the occurrence. In addition, they did not experience "physical impact." Thus, their claim for emotional distress arising from property damage does not meet the requirements of Merluzzi. See Merluzzi, 96 Nev. at 414, 610 P.2d at 743.
To the extent that our decision today is inconsistent with Merluzzi, that case is overruled.