Wilder v. City of Keene Case Brief
Audio lesson available for this case
LSD+ subscribers can listen to a recorded discussion of this brief - the full facts, holding, and reasoning in audio form.
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
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: Parents sued for emotional distress after seeing their injured son in a hospital an hour after his accident. The court denied their claim, holding that bystander recovery requires witnessing the accident itself, not just its aftermath.
Legal Significance: This case strictly construes the bystander rule for negligent infliction of emotional distress, requiring contemporaneous sensory perception of the accident, not merely the resulting injury, to limit liability and ensure foreseeability.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The plaintiffs’ eight-year-old son was fatally injured in a bicycle-automobile collision. The plaintiffs, the boy’s parents, did not witness or hear the accident. Upon being notified, they went to a hospital and saw their son in the emergency room approximately one hour after the collision occurred. Although alive, the child was in extremis with multiple severe injuries. He subsequently died. As a result of witnessing their son’s condition, the parents suffered severe emotional distress with physical manifestations. They filed individual claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) against the driver and the City of Keene, alleging the city’s negligence in maintaining overgrown foliage created a dangerous condition. The trial court dismissed the parents’ individual NIED claims for failure to state a cause of action, finding the required spatial and temporal unity was lacking.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Can plaintiffs recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress as bystanders when they did not witness the accident but observed the victim’s severe injuries at a hospital approximately one hour later?
No. The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims, holding that 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
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Can plaintiffs recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress as bystanders when they did not witness the accident but observed the victim’s severe injuries at a hospital approximately one hour later?
Conclusion
This case reinforces a bright-line rule for bystander NIED claims, prioritizing the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim a
Legal Rule
To recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress as a bystander, a 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
Legal Analysis
The court strictly adhered to the foreseeability criteria for bystander NIED claims 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
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A bystander claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) requires