Archibald v. Braverman
| Archibald v. Braverman | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Full case name | Joan Archibald, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Edward Braverman et al., Defendants and Respondents. |
| Decided | July 28, 1969 |
| Citation | 275 Cal. App. 2d 253 |
| Case history | |
| Subsequent action | Overruled in Thing v. La Chusa |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Frank Henry Kerrigan, Stephen K. Tamura, Robert Gardner[a] |
| Case opinions | |
| Decision by | Kerrigan |
| Concurrence | Tamura, Gardner |
Archibald v. Braverman, 275 Cal. App. 2d 253 (1969), was a case decided by the California Court of Appeals that first ruled that visual perception of an accident was not a necessary prerequisite to recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress under the criteria enunciated in Dillon v. Legg. The holding in Archibald was later overruled by the 1989 case Thing v. La Chusa.[1][2][3]
See also
[edit]- Krouse v. Graham, a case in 1977 with a similar ruling
Notes
[edit]- ^ Filling vacancy
References
[edit]- ^ Thing v. La Chusa, 48 Cal. 3d 644, 668
- ^ "Archibald v. Braverman". Justia Law. Retrieved June 14, 2020.
- ^ "Table of Authorities for Archibald v. Braverman, 275 Cal. App. 2d 253 – CourtListener.com". CourtListener. Retrieved June 14, 2020.
External links
[edit]- Text of Archibald v. Braverman, 275 Cal. App. 2d 253 (1969) is available from: CourtListener Google Scholar Justia