Burgess v. Superior Court

Home > B > Burgess v. Superior Court

Burgess v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. 4^th 1064 (1992).

This case involves an action by Plaintiff against her gynecologist for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff underwent cesarean section during which she was placed under general anesthetic. Defendant failed to protect the newborn baby and the baby suffered permanent brain damage due to deprivation of oxygen. In her action, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant breached his contract with her by not caring for the child properly.

The trial court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeal, however, reversed and held that Plaintiff was the direct victim and not a bystander.

The Supreme Court of California affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeal. The Court reasoned that the distinction between bystander and direct victim cases is found in the source of the duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff. In the current case, it can be stated that the defendant had a duty of care toward both the plaintiff and her fetus. A mother and her fetus are physically and emotionally connected and any harm to the fetus can be considered a direct harm to the mother. Therefore, Plaintiff in this case was a direct victim and not a bystander.

Compare: Thing v. LaChusa