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 Plaintiff-In-Intervention, a general project foreman, heard screams while working at a construction site and rushed to the scene, where he found his brother, a subcontractor's employee, severely injured from electrocution. The Plaintiff attempted to resuscitate his brother, who later died en route to the hospital. The Plaintiff did not witness the electrocution but arrived at the scene within 18 seconds of hearing the screams and observed the aftermath (paras 3-7).
Procedural History
- District Court of Doña Ana County: Granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, finding that the Plaintiff-In-Intervention failed to establish the element of "contemporary sensory perception" required for a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress (headnotes, para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-In-Intervention (Appellant): Argued that he satisfied the "contemporary sensory perception" requirement for a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress, as he heard the screams, rushed to the scene, and witnessed the immediate aftermath of his brother's electrocution (paras 1, 3-7, 14).
- Defendants (Appellees): Contended that the Plaintiff-In-Intervention did not meet the "contemporary sensory perception" requirement because he did not visually witness the electrocution and was not present at the moment of the accident (paras 1, 10).
Legal Issues
- Whether the Plaintiff-In-Intervention satisfied the "contemporary sensory perception" requirement for a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress (para 1).
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings (paras 1, 15-16).
Reasons
Per Alarid J. (Donnelly and Black JJ. concurring):
The Court emphasized that summary judgment is a drastic remedy and should only be granted when no material facts are in dispute (para 2). The Court reviewed the facts in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff-In-Intervention and found that the Plaintiff's immediate response to the screams and his perception of the aftermath of the accident raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding the "contemporary sensory perception" requirement (paras 2, 14).
The Court rejected the Defendants' argument that "contemporary sensory perception" requires visual observation of the accident. It held that the requirement could be satisfied through other sensory means, such as hearing or perceiving the event's immediate aftermath, as long as the perception was contemporaneous with the accident (paras 10-13). The Court noted that the New Mexico Supreme Court's decision in Folz v. State did not limit "contemporary sensory perception" to visual observation and that other jurisdictions have similarly interpreted the requirement more broadly (paras 9-13).
The Court concluded that the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard and that the Plaintiff-In-Intervention had made a prima facie case for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Accordingly, the grant of summary judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings (paras 14-16).