In this episode, Attorney Eric Ganci examines a significant California Supreme Court decision clarifying the standards for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) claims.

Downey v. City of Riverside

Background: The case arose when a plaintiff was giving her daughter driving directions over the phone and heard the collision that severely injured her daughter. Although the plaintiff was aware of the injury, she could not see the accident or know the defendant's role in causing it.

Key Issue: Must a bystander plaintiff be aware of both the injury and the defendant’s role in causing it to bring an NIED claim?

The Court held that awareness of the injury-causing event—not the defendant’s role—is sufficient to meet the threshold for an NIED claim. To recover damages, the plaintiff must meet three criteria:

1. Be closely related to the injury victim.
2. Be present at the scene of the injury-producing event and contemporaneously aware that it is causing injury.
3. Suffer serious emotional distress beyond what a disinterested witness would experience.

The Court declined to impose a requirement for contemporaneous awareness of the defendant’s role, emphasizing that awareness of the injury-causing event is enough.

Castellanos v. State of California

Background: This case addressed whether Proposition 22, classifying app-based drivers as independent contractors under Business and Professions Code section 7451, conflicts with the California Constitution’s provisions on workers' compensation.

Key Issue: Does Section 7451 conflict with Article XIV, section 4 of the California Constitution, which grants the Legislature broad authority to enact workers’ compensation laws?

The California Supreme Court affirmed that section 7451 does not limit the Legislature’s power to enact workers’ compensation laws. It simply classifies app-based drivers as independent contractors when specific conditions are met.

Smith v. Arizona

Background: A lab analyst’s records were used at trial to convict a defendant of drug-related charges, even though the analyst did not testify. Instead, another expert presented the absent analyst’s findings and offered an opinion based on them.

Key Issue: Does presenting an absent analyst’s records through another expert violate the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause?

The U.S. Supreme Court held that when an expert relies on an absent analyst’s testimonial statements to form their opinion, those statements are admitted to their truth. If the statements are testimonial, the Confrontation Clause bars their admission. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine whether the records were testimonial.

For more information:

1. Downey v. City of Riverside, 2024 WL 3491142
2. Castellanos v. State of California, 2024 WL 3530208 
3. Smith v. Arizona, 144 S.Ct. 1785 

Learn more about Eric Ganci