Archibald v. Braverman

KERRIGAN, Acting P. J.

In February 1968 a summary judgment was granted the defendants on the basis that plaintiff could not recover for mental illness and emotional shock sustained when she witnessed the severe injuries experienced by her son immediately after an explosion.

(Amaya

v.

Home Ice, Fuel

&

Supply Co.,

59 Cal.2d 295 [29 Cal.Rptr. 33, 379 P.2d 513].) Plaintiff promptly appealed. In June 1968, the Supreme Court overruled

Amaya, supra,

and determined that a mother is entitled to recover for physical injuries resulting from emotional trauma in witnessing the tortious infliction of death or injury to her child.

(Dillon

v.

Legg,

68 Cal.2d 728 [69 Cal. Rptr. 72, 441 P.2d 912].)

The material allegations of plaintiff’s complaint may be summarized as follows: At 12:40 p.m. on the 21st day of March, 1965, the plaintiff’s son, Robert, aged 13 years, visited defendants’ Palm Springs property at the defendants’ invitation for the purpose of doing business thereon; that at said time and place the defendants “. . .. negligently packaged, stored, managed, maintained, controlled, sold and delivered a . . . quantity of explosive material [gunpowder]. . . .’’to the boy; at said time and place the material exploded; as a result of the explosion, the boy sustained serious personal

[255]

injuries causing traumatic amputation of the right hand, the right wrist, and a portion of his right forearm, traumatic amputation of a portion of his left hand, severe lacerations of his body, a grave injury of the right eye, and loss of copious amounts of blood; that within moments of the actual explosion, the plaintiff appeared at the scene in an effort to render aid to her son; upon observing her son’s injuries, she suffered severe fright, shock, and mental illness requiring institutionalization.