Archibald v. Braverman

Archibald v. Braverman
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
Full case nameJoan Archibald, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Edward Braverman et al., Defendants and Respondents.
DecidedJuly 28, 1969
Citation(s)275 Cal. App. 2d 253
Case history
Subsequent action(s)Overruled in Thing v. La Chusa
Court membership
Judges sittingFrank Henry Kerrigan, Stephen K. Tamura, Robert Gardner[a]
Case opinions
Decision byKerrigan
ConcurrenceTamura, 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

  • Krouse v. Graham, a case in 1977 with a similar ruling

Notes

  1. ^ Filling vacancy

References

  1. ^ Thing v. La Chusa, 48 Cal. 3d 644, 668
  2. ^ "Archibald v. Braverman". Justia Law. Retrieved June 14, 2020.
  3. ^ "Table of Authorities for Archibald v. Braverman, 275 Cal. App. 2d 253 – CourtListener.com". CourtListener. Retrieved June 14, 2020.

External links

  • Text of Archibald v. Braverman, 275 Cal. App. 2d 253 (1969) is available from: CourtListener  Google Scholar  Justia 
  • v
  • t
  • e
Intentional Torts
Assault & Battery
Abuse of process
  • Hartman v. Moore
intentional infliction of emotional distress
Trespass to land & Trespass to chattels
Conversion
Privacy, Publicity rights
Tortious interference
Defamation
Negligence
Duty of care
Medical malpractice
Wrongful death, Loss of consortium
Common employment
Public Authority, Fireman's rule, Negligence per se
Causation
Negligent infliction of emotional distress
Nuisance
Public
Private
Strict liability
Ultrahazardous activity
Product liability
Damages
Joint and several liability
Comparative negligence
Punitive damages