{ "id": 2529064, "name": "LINDA SORRELLS and husband, RONALD E. SORRELLS v. M.Y.B. HOSPITALITY VENTURES OF ASHEVILLE, d/b/a RHAPSODY'S FOOD AND SPIRITS", "name_abbreviation": "Sorrells v. M.Y.B. Hospitality Ventures", "decision_date": "1993-10-08", "docket_number": "No. 61A93", "first_page": "669", "last_page": "676", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "334 N.C. 669" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "424 S.E.2d 676", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "108 N.C. App. 668", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525318 ], "year": 1993, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/108/0668-01" ] }, { "cite": "327 N.C. 283", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2497384 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/327/0283-01" ] }, { "cite": "139 S.E. 841", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "weight": 4, "year": 1927, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "841" }, { "page": "842" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "194 N.C. 401", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8609821 ], "year": 1927, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/194/0401-01" ] }, { "cite": "90 S.E. 809", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "weight": 4, "year": 1916, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "809" }, { "page": "809" }, { "page": "810" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "172 N.C. 661", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11255194 ], "year": 1916, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/172/0661-01" ] }, { "cite": "31 S.E. 709", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1898, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "711", "parenthetical": "emphasis added" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "123 N.C. 259", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8658800 ], "year": 1898, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "263", "parenthetical": "emphasis added" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/123/0259-01" ] }, { "cite": "334 N.C. 662", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2532105 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/334/0662-01" ] }, { "cite": "58 N.C. L. Rev. 435", "category": "journals:journal", "reporter": "N.C. L. Rev.", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "209 S.E.2d 494", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "499" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "286 N.C. 130", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8563771 ], "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "137" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/286/0130-01" ] }, { "cite": "395 S.E.2d 85", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 14, "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "87" }, { "page": "89" }, { "page": "88-89" }, { "page": "89" }, { "page": "89", "parenthetical": "emphasis added" }, { "page": "97" }, { "parenthetical": "emphasis in original" }, { "page": "98" }, { "page": "98" }, { "page": "98" }, { "page": "98" }, { "page": "89" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "424 S.E.2d 676", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "679-80" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "108 N.C. App. 668", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525318 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "672" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/108/0668-01" ] }, { "cite": "327 N.C. 283", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2497384 ], "weight": 6, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "286" }, { "page": "290" }, { "page": "288-90" }, { "page": "305" }, { "page": "306" }, { "page": "305" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/327/0283-01" ] }, { "cite": "266 S.E.2d 818", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "823" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "300 N.C. 295", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561077 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/300/0295-01" ] }, { "cite": "787 P.2d 553", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "557", "parenthetical": "plaintiff required to be \"present at the scene of the accident and/or arrive shortly thereafter\"" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "114 Wash. 2d 254", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wash. 2d", "case_ids": [ 1169932 ], "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "261", "parenthetical": "plaintiff required to be \"present at the scene of the accident and/or arrive shortly thereafter\"" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/wash-2d/114/0254-01" ] }, { "cite": "545 N.E.2d 83", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "91", "parenthetical": "recovery denied to parent who had \"no sensory perception of the events surrounding the accident\"" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "46 Ohio St. 3d 84", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ohio St. 3d", "case_ids": [ 1421013 ], "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "93", "parenthetical": "recovery denied to parent who had \"no sensory perception of the events surrounding the accident\"" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ohio-st-3d/46/0084-01" ] }, { "cite": "557 A.2d 636", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.2d", "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "639", "parenthetical": "recovery denied to parents who neither saw nor heard collision" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "131 N.H. 599", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.H.", "case_ids": [ 2350971 ], "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "604", "parenthetical": "recovery denied to parents who neither saw nor heard collision" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nh/131/0599-01" ] }, { "cite": "532 P.2d 673", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "676", "parenthetical": "physical proximity to scene of tort is determining factor" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "56 Haw. 204", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Haw.", "case_ids": [ 8828228 ], "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "209", "parenthetical": "physical proximity to scene of tort is determining factor" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/haw/56/0204-01" ] }, { "cite": "268 Cal. Rptr. 309", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. Rptr.", "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "329", "parenthetical": "plaintiffs must be on the scene and \"then aware [that decedent] was being injured by [the tort-feasor's] negligent conduct\"" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "219 Cal. App. 3d 318", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4426526 ], "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "350", "parenthetical": "plaintiffs must be on the scene and \"then aware [that decedent] was being injured by [the tort-feasor's] negligent conduct\"" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/cal-app-3d/219/0318-01" ] }, { "cite": "261 Cal. Rptr. 769", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. Rptr.", "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "778", "parenthetical": "niece given opportunity to prove sufficiently close relationship" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "213 Cal. App. 3d 596", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4440981 ], "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "610", "parenthetical": "niece given opportunity to prove sufficiently close relationship" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/cal-app-3d/213/0596-01" ] }, { "cite": "69 Cal. Rptr. 72", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. Rptr.", "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "80", "parenthetical": "mother of victim is \"closely related\"" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "441 P.2d 912", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "920", "parenthetical": "mother of victim is \"closely related\"" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "68 Cal. 2d 728", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2306138 ], "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "741", "parenthetical": "mother of victim is \"closely related\"" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/cal-2d/68/0728-01" ] }, { "cite": "250 Cal. Rptr. 254", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. Rptr.", "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "258", "parenthetical": "unmarried cohabitant denied recovery" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "758 P.2d 582", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "587", "parenthetical": "unmarried cohabitant denied recovery" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "46 Cal. 3d 267", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. 3d", "case_ids": [ 1968797 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "273", "parenthetical": "unmarried cohabitant denied recovery" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/cal-3d/46/0267-01" ] }, { "cite": "257 Cal. Rptr. 865", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. Rptr.", "weight": 2, "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "880", "parenthetical": "mother of victim is \"closely related\"" }, { "page": "881" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "771 P.2d 814", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "829-30", "parenthetical": "mother of victim is \"closely related\"" }, { "page": "830" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "48 Cal. 3d 644", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4614529 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "667-68", "parenthetical": "mother of victim is \"closely related\"" }, { "page": "669" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/cal-3d/48/0644-01" ] }, { "cite": "395 S.E.2d 85", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "99, 106" }, { "page": "103", "parenthetical": "Meyer, J., dissenting" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "327 N.C. 283", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2497384 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "307, 318" }, { "page": "314-15" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/327/0283-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 870, "char_count": 17161, "ocr_confidence": 0.753, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.8094397859225063e-07, "percentile": 0.8374497895437147 }, "sha256": "28551e9328c580320ab9614488b976791d456b07705e5a5cfb66ad3cfd92ff3d", "simhash": "1:6755343326f728a6", "word_count": 2820 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:40:35.485142+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "LINDA SORRELLS and husband, RONALD E. SORRELLS v. M.Y.B. HOSPITALITY VENTURES OF ASHEVILLE, d/b/a RHAPSODY\u2019S FOOD AND SPIRITS" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MITCHELL, Justice.\nThe issue before us in this case is whether it was reasonably foreseeable that the plaintiffs would suffer severe emotional distress upon learning that their son had been killed in a one-car accident after he was negligently served alcohol at the defendant\u2019s place of business. We hold that it was not reasonably foreseeable; therefore, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.\nAs this case was dismissed prior to trial pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6), we must treat the allegations of the complaint as true. See Johnson v. Ruark Obstetrics and Gynecology Assocs., P.A., 327 N.C. 283, 286, 395 S.E.2d 85, 87 (1990); Ragsdale v. Kennedy, 286 N.C. 130, 137, 209 S.E.2d 494, 499 (1974). The plaintiffs\u2019 complaint alleges that they were the parents of Travis Cain Sorrells (hereinafter \u201cTravis\u201d), a 21-year-old community college student. On or about the evening of 21 May 1990, Travis was drinking alcohol with friends at Rhapsody\u2019s Food and Spirits, the defendant\u2019s place of business. Other members of Travis\u2019 party asked their waitress not to serve Travis any more drinks because he \u201chad had enough to drink\u201d and would be driving himself home. Nevertheless, other Rhapsody\u2019s employees continued to serve Travis alcohol knowing he was highly intoxicated. As Travis was driving home from Rhapsody\u2019s he lost control of his car, struck a bridge abutment and was killed.\nThe complaint further alleges that when the plaintiffs learned that their son had been killed in a car accident and \u201chis body mutilated,\u201d the information \u201chad a devastating emotional effect\u201d on them. As a result, they \u201csuffered . . . sickness, helplessness [and] frailty and . . . underwent] much grief, worry, loss of enjoyment of life, a wrecked nervous system, depression and emotional grief.\u201d\nThe defendant moved to dismiss this action for negligent infliction of emotional distress on the ground that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6) (1990). After a hearing, the trial court entered an order granting the defendant\u2019s motion and dismissing the action.\nThe Court of Appeals held that the question of foreseeability in the case at bar was one for the jury and the trial court had therefore erred in dismissing the plaintiffs\u2019 claim. Sorrells v. M.Y.B. Hospitality Ventures, 108 N.C. App. 668, 672, 424 S.E.2d 676, 679-80 (1993). Therefore, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court\u2019s order.\nThis Court has recognized claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress for more than one hundred years. Johnson v. Ruark Obstetrics, 327 N.C. at 290, 395 S.E.2d at 89. See generally Robert G. Byrd, Recovery for Mental Anguish in North Carolina, 58 N.C. L. Rev. 435 (1980). In Johnson v. Ruark Obstetrics we briefly reviewed the various mechanical and arbitrary \u201ctests\u201d applied to claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress in other jurisdictions. Ruark, 327 N.C. at 288-90, 395 S.E.2d at 88-89. We expressly refused, however, to adopt any of those mechanical tests and emphasized that claims for emotional distress filed in our courts \u201cmust, of course, be decided under North Carolina law.\u201d Id. at 290, 395 S.E.2d at 89. We surveyed the decisions of this Court applying North Carolina law and expressly held that \u201cour law includes no arbitrary requirements to be applied mechanically to claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress.\u201d Id. at 291, 395 S.E.2d at 89 (emphasis added).\nTo state a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress under North Carolina law, the plaintiff need only allege that: \u201c(1) the defendant negligently engaged in conduct, (2) it was reasonably foreseeable that such conduct would cause the plaintiff severe emotional distress . . . , and (3) the conduct did in fact cause the plaintiff severe emotional distress.\u201d Id. at 304, 395 S.E.2d at 97. In Ruark we emphasized that \u201cmere temporary fright, disappointment or regret will not suffice.\u201d Id. Rather, to establish \u201csevere emotional distress\u201d as defined in Ruark, the plaintiff must show an \u201cemotional or mental disorder, such as, for example, neurosis, psychosis, chronic depression, phobia, or any other type of severe and disabling emotional or mental condition which may be generally recognized and diagnosed by professionals trained to do so.\u201d Id.\nWhere, as in the case at bar, the plaintiff is seeking to recover for his or her severe emotional distress arising from an injury to another, the plaintiff may recover \u201cif. . . [he or she] can prove that he or she has suffered such severe emotional distress as a proximate and foreseeable result of the defendant\u2019s negligence.\u201d Id. (emphasis in original). In making this foreseeability determination, the \u201cfactors to be considered\u201d include, but are not limited to: (1) \u201cthe plaintiff\u2019s proximity to the negligent act\u201d causing injury to the other person, (2) \u201cthe relationship between the plaintiff and the other person,\u201d and (3) \u201cwhether the plaintiff personally observed the negligent act.\u201d Id. at 305, 395 S.E.2d at 98. However, such factors are not mechanistic requirements the absence of which will inevitably defeat a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. See generally Gardner v. Gardner, 334 N.C. 662, \u2014 S.E.2d \u2014 (1993). The presence or absence of such factors simply is not determinative in all cases. Id. Therefore, North Carolina law forbids the mechanical application of any arbitrary factors \u2014such as a requirement that the plaintiff be within a \u201czone of danger\u201d created by the defendant or a requirement that the plaintiff personally observe the crucial negligent act \u2014 for purposes of determining foreseeability. Rather, the question of reasonable foreseeability under North Carolina law \u201cmust be determined under all the facts presented, and should be resolved on a case-by-case basis by the trial court and, where appropriate, by a jury.\u201d Ruark, 327 N.C. at 305, 395 S.E.2d at 98. While some may fear that such reliance on reasonable foreseeability, \u201cif carried out to its fullest extent, would directly lead to the recovery of damages for all kinds of mental suffering,\u201d this Court long ago concluded in emotional distress cases that we are \u201ccompelled to carry out a principle only to its necessary and logical results, and not to its furthest theoretical limit, in disregard of other essential principles.\u201d Chappell v. Ellis, 123 N.C. 259, 263, 31 S.E. 709, 711 (1898) (emphasis added), quoted with approval in Ruark, 327 N.C. at 306, 395 S.E.2d at 98.\nAs this case hinges on the issue of reasonable foreseeability, it is useful and instructive to note other cases \u2014 in addition to Ruark \u2014 in which this Court has considered the foreseeability of a plaintiff\u2019s emotional distress arising from his or her concern for another. One such case is Bailey v. Long, 172 N.C. 661, 90 S.E. 809 (1916), in which the plaintiff\u2019s wife died due to the negligence of the defendant physician and his hospital. The plaintiff had taken his wife to the defendant\u2019s hospital for treatment of a broken hip. Because of the defective construction of the plaintiff\u2019s wife\u2019s room, rain water leaked into the room through the windows \u201cto such an extent that the floor of the room was covered with water to a depth of more than one inch on several occasions.\u201d Id. at 661-62, 90 S.E. at 809. The room was so cold and damp as a result that the plaintiff\u2019s wife eventually contracted pneumonia and died. The plaintiff sought to recover for the \u201cgreat pain and mental anguish\u201d he suffered \u201cin witnessing the agony and suffering of his said wife while lingering with . . . pneumonia, and in the act and article of death resulting therefrom.\u201d Id. at 662, 90 S.E. at 809. This Court reversed the trial court\u2019s dismissal of the plaintiff\u2019s action, holding that: \u201cWe see no reason why . . . the husband . . . should not recover for the mental anguish occasioned by witnessing . . . [his wife\u2019s] suffering and death against, the alleged author of such suffering and death.\u201d Id. at 663, 90 S.E. at 810.\nThis Court reached a contrary result in Michigan Sanitarium and Benevolent Ass\u2019n v. Neal, 194 N.C. 401, 139 S.E. 841 (1927). Mrs. Neal, who had placed her son in a sanitarium for treatment, alleged that because of the sanitarium\u2019s negligent treatment of her son, \u201cinstead of being benefited,\u201d he \u201csustained ... a violent derangement of mind and temporary loss of sanity.\u201d Id. at 402, 139 S.E. at 841. Because of her son\u2019s derangement, Mrs. Neal \u201csuffered great mental anguish.\u201d Id. Despite the close personal relationship between Mrs. Neal and her son and the fact that the sanitarium almost certainly knew of this relationship, this Court held that Mrs. Neal\u2019s \u201cdamages are too remote to be made the subject of an action.\u201d Id. at 403, 139 S.E. at 842.\nAs in Neal, we hold in the case at bar that the plaintiffs\u2019 alleged severe emotional distress arising from their concern for their son was a possibility \u201ctoo remote\u201d to be reasonably foreseeable. Here, it does not appear that the defendant had any actual knowledge that the plaintiffs existed. Further, while it may be natural to assume that any person is likely to have living parents or friends and that such parents or friends may suffer some measure of emotional distress if that person is severely injured or killed, those factors are not determinative on the issue of foreseeability. The determinative question for us in the present case is whether, absent specific information putting one on notice, it is reasonably foreseeable that such parents or others will suffer \u201csevere emotional distress\u201d as that term is defined in law. We conclude as a matter of law that the possibility (1) the defendant\u2019s negligence in serving alcohol to Travis (2) would combine with Travis\u2019 driving while intoxicated (3) to result in a fatal accident (4) which would in turn cause Travis\u2019 parents (if he had any) not only to become distraught, but also to suffer \u201csevere emotional distress\u201d as defined in Ruark, simply was a possibility too remote to permit a finding that it was reasonably foreseeable. This is so despite the parent-child relationship between the plaintiffs and Travis. With regard to the other factors mentioned in Ruark as bearing on, but not necessarily determinative of, the issue of reasonable foreseeability, we note that these plaintiffs did not personally observe any negligent act attributable to the defendant. However, we reemphasize here that any such factors are merely matters to be considered among other matters bearing on the question of foreseeability. Ruark, 327 N.C. at 305, 395 S.E.2d at 98. It is well established under North Carolina law that such factors are not determinative requirements to be applied mechanically. Id. at 291, 395 S.E.2d at 89.\nAs we reverse the Court of Appeals on the issue of foreseeability, we do not consider or address the other defense proffered by the defendant \u2014 that Travis\u2019 contributory negligence in driving while highly intoxicated is imputed to the plaintiffs, thereby barring their claim.\nFor the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Court of Appeals, reversing the trial court\u2019s order granting the defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss, is reversed. This case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for reinstatement of the trial court\u2019s order.\nREVERSED AND REMANDED.", "type": "majority", "author": "MITCHELL, Justice." }, { "text": "Justice Meyer\nconcurring in result.\nI concur only in the result reached by the majority. I continue, primarily for the reasons stated in my dissent and that of Justice Webb in Johnson v. Ruark Obstetrics, 327 N.C. 283, 307, 318, 395 S.E.2d 85, 99, 106 (1990), to believe that this Court should place some limitations on the nebulous \u201cforeseeability\u201d rule adopted by the majority. Those restrictions should, in accord with those adopted by the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions, be based on the relationship of the claimant to the injured or deceased person and the proximity of perception as well as the severity of the claimant\u2019s mental or emotional injury. For limitations on foreseeability based on plaintiff\u2019s relationship to the victim, see, e.g., Thing v. La Chusa, 48 Cal. 3d 644, 667-68, 771 P.2d 814, 829-30, 257 Cal. Rptr. 865, 880 (1989) (mother of victim is \u201cclosely related\u201d); Elden v. Sheldon, 46 Cal. 3d 267, 273, 758 P.2d 582, 587, 250 Cal. Rptr. 254, 258 (1988) (unmarried cohabitant denied recovery); Dillon v. Legg, 68 Cal. 2d 728, 741, 441 P.2d 912, 920, 69 Cal. Rptr. 72, 80 (1968) (mother of victim is \u201cclosely related\u201d); Quesada v. Oak Hill Improvement Co., 213 Cal. App. 3d 596, 610, 261 Cal. Rptr. 769, 778, reh\u2019g denied & op. modified, rev. denied (1989) (niece given opportunity to prove sufficiently close relationship). For limitations on foreseeability based on the proximity of perception, see, e.g., Thing v. La Chusa, 48 Cal. 3d at 669, 771 P.2d at 830, 257 Cal. Rptr. at 881 (recovery denied to mother who was neither present at scene of accident nor aware that son was being injured); Wright v. City of Los Angeles, 219 Cal. App. 3d 318, 350, 268 Cal. Rptr. 309, 329, rev. denied (1990) (plaintiffs must be on the scene and \u201cthen aware [that decedent] was being injured by [the tort-feasor\u2019s] negligent conduct\u201d); Kelley v. Kokua Sales & Supply, Ltd., 56 Haw. 204, 209, 532 P.2d 673, 676 (1975) (physical proximity to scene of tort is determining factor); Wilder v. City of Keene, 131 N.H. 599, 604, 557 A.2d 636, 639 (1989) (recovery denied to parents who neither saw nor heard collision); Burris v. Grange Mutual Cos., 46 Ohio St. 3d 84, 93, 545 N.E.2d 83, 91 (1989) (recovery denied to parent who had \u201cno sensory perception of the events surrounding the accident\u201d); Gain v. Carroll Mill Co., 114 Wash. 2d 254, 261, 787 P.2d 553, 557 (1990) (plaintiff required to be \u201cpresent at the scene of the accident and/or arrive shortly thereafter\u201d).\nI also believe that this Court should require the joinder of any negligent infliction of emotional distress claim with the suit on the underlying wrongful death or personal injury claim. The jury would thereby be able to view the claims in their proper context and fashion its remedies accordingly. To allow the parents or other loved ones to bring a wrongful death claim separate and apart from their negligent infliction of emotional distress claim raises the possibility of inconsistent verdicts based on the same act of negligence and, in many cases, double recoveries by the same parties for the same loss.\nThis approach is not without precedent in North Carolina law. In Nicholson v. Hospital, 300 N.C. 295, 266 S.E.2d 818 (1980), this Court held that\na spouse may maintain a cause of action for loss of consortium due to the negligent actions of third parties so long as that action for loss of consortium is joined with any suit the other spouse may have instituted to recover for his or her personal injuries.\nId. at 304, 266 S.E.2d at 823. A claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress flowing from an injury to a third party bears sufficient resemblance in all pertinent respects to a claim for loss of consortium to merit requiring the two claims to be joined in the same action. See Ruark, 327 N.C. at 314-15, 395 S.E.2d at 103 (Meyer, J., dissenting).", "type": "concurrence", "author": "Justice Meyer" } ], "attorneys": [ "McLean & Dickson, P.A., by Russell L. McLean, III, for plaintiff s-appellees.", "Harrell & Leake, by Larry Leake, for defendant-appellant.", "Nichols, Caffrey, Hill, Evans & Murrelle, by Richard L. Pinto, on behalf of the North Carolina Association of Defense Attorneys, amicus curiae." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "LINDA SORRELLS and husband, RONALD E. SORRELLS v. M.Y.B. HOSPITALITY VENTURES OF ASHEVILLE, d/b/a RHAPSODY\u2019S FOOD AND SPIRITS\nNo. 61A93\n(Filed 8 October 1993)\nIntoxicating Liquor \u00a7 43 (NCI4th); Negligence \u00a7 19 (NCI4th)\u2014 alcohol served to intoxicated patron \u2014patron killed in one car accident \u2014 emotional distress to patron\u2019s parents \u2014 foreseeability\nThe trial court did not err by dismissing an action for negligent infliction of emotional distress under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6) where plaintiffs alleged that they were the parents of a 21-year-old student who was served alcohol at defendant\u2019s place of business by employees who knew that their son was highly intoxicated, that their son was killed when he lost control of his car as he drove home, and that the information that their son had been killed had a devastating emotional impact on plaintiffs. The possibility that defendant\u2019s negligence in serving alcohol to plaintiffs\u2019 son would combine with the son driving while intoxicated to result in a fatal accident which would cause the son\u2019s parents (if he had any) not only to become distraught, but also to suffer severe emotional distress as defined in Johnson v. Ruark Obstetrics, 327 N.C. 283, simply was a possibility too remote to permit a finding that it was reasonably foreseeable.\nAm Jur 2d, Intoxicating Liquors \u00a7 265; Negligence \u00a7 488 et seq.\nJustice MEYER concurring in the result.\nAppeal as of right pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 108 N.C. App. 668, 424 S.E.2d 676 (1993), reversing an order entered by John, J., in Superior Court, Haywood County, on 5 July 1991. Heard in the Supreme Court on 16 September 1993.\nMcLean & Dickson, P.A., by Russell L. McLean, III, for plaintiff s-appellees.\nHarrell & Leake, by Larry Leake, for defendant-appellant.\nNichols, Caffrey, Hill, Evans & Murrelle, by Richard L. Pinto, on behalf of the North Carolina Association of Defense Attorneys, amicus curiae." }, "file_name": "0669-01", "first_page_order": 693, "last_page_order": 700 }