This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The case arose from a near-drowning incident at a waterpark operated by the Defendant. A nine-year-old boy, participating in a city summer recreation program, was found unconscious in a wave pool and resuscitated by lifeguards and paramedics. His sister was not present at the time of the incident but arrived later to see him being treated. Their mother, informed by phone, arrived at the scene to find her son being placed into an ambulance, which caused her severe emotional distress (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: Granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant, dismissing the Plaintiff's claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress on the grounds that neither the mother nor the sister contemporaneously perceived the accident (headnotes, para 4).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that she and her daughter contemporaneously perceived the accident's effects and that the concept of "contemporaneous sensory perception" should be interpreted broadly to include their experiences. She relied on precedent and cases from other jurisdictions to support her claim (paras 6-7).
- Defendant-Appellee: Contended that neither the mother nor the sister met the requirement of contemporaneous sensory perception as they learned of the accident through indirect means and only saw the victim after paramedics had begun treatment (paras 4, 6).
Legal Issues
- Whether the Plaintiff and her daughter contemporaneously perceived the near-drowning incident to satisfy the requirements for a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) (para 1).
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the Defendant, holding that the Plaintiff and her daughter did not meet the contemporaneous perception requirement for NIED claims (para 21).
Reasons
Per Minzner J. (Ransom and Franchini JJ. concurring):
The Court clarified the requirement of "contemporaneous sensory perception" for bystander NIED claims, emphasizing that it includes observing the accident or its immediate aftermath before emergency medical professionals arrive. The Court rejected the Plaintiff's argument that her and her daughter's experiences constituted contemporaneous perception, as they only saw the victim after paramedics had begun treatment. The Court distinguished this case from precedents like Acosta v. Castle Construction, Inc., where the bystander arrived at the scene almost immediately after the accident. The Court adopted a bright-line rule limiting recovery to those who observe the accident or its immediate aftermath before professional medical intervention, to prevent limitless liability and ensure consistency in applying the law (paras 5-20).