7 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Lejeune v. Rayne Branch Hosp.green2 sentences2016In Lejeune v. Rayne Branch Hosp., 556 So.2d 559 , 570 n. 11 (La. 1990), the Louisiana Supreme Court explained a bystander claim as follows: "[T]he essence of the tort is the shock caused by the perception of the especially horrendous event.” Gates v. Richardson, 719 P.2d 193 (Wyo.1986). 2009The trial court reviewed the elements of a bystander claim as set out in Lejeune v. Rayne Branch Hospital, 556 So.2d 559 (La.1990), stating that Joshua must meet those elements to have a cause of action under La. | 2 | 3 |
Trahan v. McManusgreen2 sentences2016Therefore, recovery will not be permitted for emotional distress when the plaintiff is merely informed of the matter after the accident....” Similarly, in Trahan v. McManus, 97-1224, pp. 11-12 (La.3/2/99), 728 So.2d 1273, 1279 (emphasis added), the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that the requirements of a bystander claim under La.Civ.Code art. 2315.6: [S]uggest a need for temporal proximity between the tortious event, the victim’s observable harm, and the plaintiff’s mental distress arising from an awareness of the harm caused by the event. 2016Distinct from both actions is the bystander claim, which arises when a person observes an injury-causing event or soon,after comes upon the scene -of an injury and is contemporaneously aware ■ that the event has caused severe- harm to the direct victim. ■ Trahan v. McManus,- 97-1224 (La.3/2/99), 728 So.2d 1273 . | 1 | 2 |
Corso v. Merrillgreen2 sentences2016See also Corso v.. Merrill, 119 N.H. 647 , 406 A.2d 300 (1979), which found that "(t)he emotional injury must be directly attributable to the emotional impact of the plaintiffs observation or contemporaneous sensory perception of the accident and immediate viewing of the accident victim. 2016See also Corso v.. Merrill, 119 N.H. 647 , 406 A.2d 300 (1979), which found that "(t)he emotional injury must be directly attributable to the emotional impact of the plaintiffs observation or contemporaneous sensory perception of the accident and immediate viewing of the accident victim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. McGhee
green
2 sentences2018A bystander in a bar was shot and killed during an altercation among three men in State v. McGhee , 10-583 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/8/10) , 52 So.3d 318 , writ denied , 11-62 (La. 5/20/11), 63 So.3d 973 . 2015A bystander in a bar was shot and killed during an altercation among three men in State v. McGhee, 10-583 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/8/10) , 52 So.3d 318 , writ denied, 11-62 (La.5/20/11), 63 So.3d 973 . | 3 | 2013–2018 |
State Ex Rel. Ip
green
2 sentences2018A bystander in a bar was shot and killed during an altercation among three men in State v. McGhee , 10-583 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/8/10) , 52 So.3d 318 , writ denied , 11-62 (La. 5/20/11), 63 So.3d 973 . 2015A bystander in a bar was shot and killed during an altercation among three men in State v. McGhee, 10-583 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/8/10) , 52 So.3d 318 , writ denied, 11-62 (La.5/20/11), 63 So.3d 973 . | 3 | 2013–2018 |
Lockett v. STATE, DOTD
green
1 sentence2016R.S. 13:5106[.]” Relying on Lockett v. State, Dept. of Transp. & Dev., 03-1767 (La.2/25/04), 869 So.2d 87 , Ms. Renfro argues that the version of La.R.S. 13:5106 applicable to, the instant case had been deemed ambiguous, and therefore two separate $500,000 general damage caps are permitted; “namely, one general 117damage cap in the wrongful death claim under [La.Civ.Code] [a]rt[.] 2315.[2] and the second general damage cap in the ... [bystander] claim under [La.Civ.Code] [a]rt[J 2315.[6.]” However, Ms. Renfro’s argument incorrectly assumes that a bystander claim was properly submitted to the j | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Gates v. Richardson
green
1 sentence2016In Lejeune v. Rayne Branch Hosp., 556 So.2d 559 , 570 n. 11 (La. 1990), the Louisiana Supreme Court explained a bystander claim as follows: "[T]he essence of the tort is the shock caused by the perception of the especially horrendous event.” Gates v. Richardson, 719 P.2d 193 (Wyo.1986). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Castille v. Louisiana Medical Mutual Ins. Co.
green
2 sentences2016Co., 14-519 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/5/14) ,■ 150 So.3d 614 . 4 The jury instructions discuss. only a claim for damages resulting from Mallory’s death, and there is no indication that any of the specific categories of general damages were meant to compensate Ms. Ren-fro solely for a bystander claim. 5 Additionally, there is no indication in the final judgment that any of the 12ndamages awarded were specifically meant to. compensate Ms. Renfro for a bystander claim, or that the trial court found that Ms. Ren-fro had proven her entitlement to a bystander claim. 2016Co., 14-519 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/5/14) ,■ 150 So.3d 614 . 4 The jury instructions discuss. only a claim for damages resulting from Mallory’s death, and there is no indication that any of the specific categories of general damages were meant to compensate Ms. Ren-fro solely for a bystander claim. 5 Additionally, there is no indication in the final judgment that any of the 12ndamages awarded were specifically meant to. compensate Ms. Renfro for a bystander claim, or that the trial court found that Ms. Ren-fro had proven her entitlement to a bystander claim. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Wartelle v. Women's and Children's Hosp., Inc.
green
1 sentence2014For instance, wrongful death and survival actions are premised on the direct victim’s death, but “a bystander action has no necessary relationship to a death.” Wartelle v. Women’s & Children’s Hosp., Inc., 97-744 (La.12/2/97), 704 So.2d 778, 784-85 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc.
green
1 sentence2014Ms. Castille correctly defines a cause of action as “the operative facts which give rise to the plaintiffs right to judicially assert the action against the defendant.” Everything On Wheels Subaru, Inc., 616 So.2d at 1238 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.