Krouse v. Graham
Californian Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Krouse v. Graham?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
SHOW ALL QUESTIONS
Krouse v. Graham, 19 Cal.3d 59 (1977), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of California ruling that a lack of visual perception of an accident did not necessarily preclude recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress.[1]
Quick Facts Krouse v. Graham, Decided March 14, 1977 ...
Krouse v. Graham | |
---|---|
Decided March 14, 1977 | |
Full case name | Benjamin Clifford Krouse et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Homer Adams Graham, Defendant and Appellant. |
Citation(s) | 19 Cal.3d 59; 562 P.2d 1022; 137 Cal. Rptr. 863 |
Holding | |
Obtaining a recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress does not require visual perception of the event. | |
Court membership | |
Chief Justice | Mathew Tobriner[lower-alpha 1] |
Associate Justices | Stanley Mosk, William P. Clark Jr., Frank K. Richardson, Raymond L. Sullivan, Donald Wright[lower-alpha 2] |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Richardson, joined by Tobriner, Sullivan, Wright |
Dissent | Mosk, joined by Clark |
Close