Grotts v. Zahner
989 P.2d 415 · Nevada Supreme Court · 1999
Facts
Kellie Grotts and her fiancé were involved in an accident with Gertrude Zahner, resulting in the fiancé's fatal injuries. Grotts sued Zahner for bystander emotional distress, but the district court dismissed her claim, ruling she was not 'closely related' to her fiancé as a matter of law. Grotts appealed the dismissal.
Issue
Does an affianced relationship (fiancé) satisfy the 'closely related' requirement for a bystander negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) claim, or must the relationship be based on family membership by blood or marriage?
Holding
The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that a non-family relationship, such as an engagement, fails as a matter of law to qualify for bystander NIED standing. Grotts, as a fiancé, did not enjoy the type of 'close relationship' required.
Rule
For bystander negligent infliction of emotional distress claims, the 'closeness of relationship' requirement is generally determined based upon family membership, either by blood or marriage. Immediate family members qualify as a matter of law, while non-family relationships do not; relationships beyond immediate family may be assessed by a fact-finder.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.