LV woman entitled to trial, high court rules

CARSON CITY -- The Nevada Supreme Court has ruled that a Las Vegas woman was entitled to a trial to prove her emotional distress while caring for her suffering mother, who had been given the wrong medicine by a pharmacy.

The court, in a 3-2 decision Tuesday, overturned District Judge Donald Mosley, who had granted a pre-trial judgment in favor of Sav On Drug Stores, which was sued by Dianna Crippens.

One of the dissenting justices, Cliff Young, said the majority decision, will open the door for a proliferation of suits and drive up insurance rates.

Crippens claims a Sav On druggist erred in filling a prescription for her mother. After taking the incorrect medicine, her mother became incoherent, experienced shock and became permanently disabled, she said in a lawsuit.

The majority of prior cases involving negligent infliction of emotional distress have involved auto accidents and the distress suffered by a bystander. This decision expands those who can sue for this cause.

Justice Miriam Shearing, who wrote the majority opinion, said in this case the overall circumstances must be examined at trial to determine whether the harm to Crippens was reasonably foreseeable.

She said because of the negligence of the pharmacist, the "daughter poisoned her mother. Under these facts, it was entirely foreseeable that the drug would significantly harm the actual patient and that a close relative would continue administration until the ultimate catastrophic effect was realized."

Shearing said Crippens still must prove her damages and that they were the cause of the pharmacist's negligence. "The jury should be allowed to make the determination of whether Crippens' claim is meritorious," Shearing said.

Chief Justice Charles Springer and Young wrote dissenting opinions. Springer said that in prior decisions on these types of cases, an accident was involved.

"It is rather clear that there was no 'accident' here, that Ms. Crippens did not observe an accident and that she did not suffer a 'shock' from observing an accident," Springer wrote.

Young said he was disturbed by the majority's decision that expands the scope of potential liability cases. "It seems to me that under the majority opinion, negligent infliction of emotional distress will be recoverable -- or claimed-- as a matter of course in virtually every personal injury action."

This policy change, Young said should be made through the Legislature, not the courts.

archive