Connection lost
Server error
THING v. LA CHUSA Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A mother who did not witness the car accident that injured her son sued for emotional distress after seeing him at the scene. The court denied recovery, establishing a strict rule requiring a bystander to be present and aware of the injury as it occurs.
Legal Significance: This case established a bright-line, three-part test for bystander negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) in California, replacing the flexible Dillon guidelines with rigid requirements to limit liability.
THING v. LA CHUSA Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiff Maria Thing’s minor son was struck and injured by a car driven by defendant La Chusa. Thing was nearby but did not sensorily perceive the accident; she neither saw nor heard it. Her daughter informed her of the accident, and she then rushed to the scene. There, she saw her bloody and unconscious child lying in the road, believing him to be dead. As a result of witnessing the aftermath of the accident, Thing alleged she suffered severe emotional disturbance and shock. She sued the defendant for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) as a bystander. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that because the plaintiff did not contemporaneously observe the injury-producing event, she could not recover as a matter of law. The trial court granted the motion, but the Court of Appeal reversed, leading to this appeal.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: May a plaintiff recover damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress caused by observing an injury to a third person if the plaintiff was not present at the scene of the injury-producing event at the time it occurred?
No. The court reversed the Court of Appeal, holding that recovery for Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cup
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
May a plaintiff recover damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress caused by observing an injury to a third person if the plaintiff was not present at the scene of the injury-producing event at the time it occurred?
Conclusion
This decision significantly narrowed the scope of bystander NIED in California by Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercita
Legal Rule
A plaintiff may recover damages for emotional distress as a bystander to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserun
Legal Analysis
The court abandoned the flexible foreseeability "guidelines" from *Dillon v. Legg*, concluding Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupid
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The court replaced the flexible Dillon v. Legg foreseeability guidelines for