Skip to content

TortsDuty

Dillon v. Legg

Supreme Court of California · Decided June 21, 1968 · Core case

Full citation

Dillon v. Legg, 441 P.2d 912 (Cal. 1968).

Quote pages are pages of 68 Cal. 2d 728, the official report, so quotes and pinpoints cite it; for 441 P.2d 912, find the page in that reporter.

VerifiedQuotes, pinpoints and citation checked word for word against the opinion; facts checked against the opinion before publication. October 20, 2026.This brief explains the opinion as issued. Later treatment and current-law status are not assessed here.

Margery M. Dillon

mother of the child killedplaintiff and appellant

David Luther Legg

driver of the cardefendant and respondent

The parties: Margery M. Dillon v. David Luther Legg.

Brief

Facts

The complaint alleged that on or about September 27, 1964, Legg drove his car south on Bluegrass Road near Clover Lane in Sacramento County, while Erin Lee Dillon, an infant daughter of Margery Dillon, lawfully crossed the road. It further alleged that Legg drove negligently, that his car collided with Erin, and that her injuries proximately caused her death. Margery Dillon, Erin's mother, sued for that loss. In a second claim she alleged that she was in close proximity to the collision and personally witnessed it. She alleged that, because of Legg's negligence, she suffered great emotional disturbance and shock and injury to her nervous system, which caused her great physical and mental pain and suffering. Her other daughter, Cheryl, Erin's sister, sued in a third claim on similar allegations: she was close to the collision, saw it, and suffered shock and injury to her nervous system. The opinion treats the mother as not within the zone of danger, meaning the area where a person would fear being hit herself. It treats the sister as possibly within it. Legg also raised the defense that the contributory negligence of the mother, the sister and the child helped cause the accident.

Issues

  1. Can a mother who was outside the zone of danger state a negligence claim against a driver for physical injury caused by shock at seeing the driver negligently kill her child?
  2. Do fears of fraudulent claims and of claims that cannot be defined justify denying a duty of care to such a mother?

Holding

A mother outside the zone of danger but near the scene who suffered shock with physical injury from seeing a negligent driver kill her child alleged a sufficient prima facie case. The court rejected the zone-of-danger limit and overruled Amaya to the extent inconsistent. It confined its ruling to shock that results in physical injury.

The rest of this brief is for subscribers

Student, Pro and Firm include the procedural history, the rule and the reasoning, the IRAC and CREAC versions, every key quote with its pinpoint, the citation box with parallel citations and short forms and the exam angle.

Learn the citation form

Short video lessons on the rules behind this brief’s citations, each with two pause-and-practice exercises.

The Citation Code · citationcode.com/cases/dillon-v-legg