In Doan v. Banner Health, Inc.,[1] the supreme court held that a viable bystander claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) does not require the plaintiff’s contemporaneous realization that the injuries they observed were negligently caused. Doan accompanied her ill daughter to the hospital. While at the hospital, Doan was directed to leave her daughter’s room and only returned to the room after her daughter had died, at which point Doan saw her daughter’s body. Doan brought a claim for NIED against the medical care providers, which the superior court dismissed after granting summary judgment for the defendants. On Doan’s appeal, the doctors argued that an NIED bystander claim cannot be made unless the plaintiff contemporaneously comprehended that the conduct causing injury was negligent. The supreme court reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment, holding that a viable bystander claim for NIED does not depend upon the plaintiff’s contemporaneous realization that the injuries they observed were negligently caused. The court reasoned that the relevant inquiry in an NIED claim is whether the plaintiff had a sudden sensory observation of traumatic injuries of a close relative in the immediate aftermath of the event which produced such injuries, not the plaintiff’s ability to discern the presence of negligence in the injurious conduct. The supreme court reversed, holding that a viable bystander claim for NIED does not require the plaintiff’s contemporaneous realization that the injuries they observed were negligently caused.
[1] 442 P.3d 706 (Alaska 2019).
