Archibald v. Braverman
Topic: Social
From HandWiki - Reading time: 1 min
Archibald v. Braverman, Template:Law report (1969), was a case decided by the California Court of Appeals that first ruled that visual perception of an accident was not a necessary prerequisite to recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress under the criteria enunciated in Dillon v. Legg. The holding in Archibald was later overruled by the 1989 case Thing v. La Chusa.[1][2][3]
References
- ↑ Thing v. La Chusa, 48 Cal. 3d 644, 668
- ↑ "Archibald v. Braverman" (in en). https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2d/275/253.html.
- ↑ "Table of Authorities for Archibald v. Braverman, 275 Cal. App. 2d 253 – CourtListener.com" (in en-us). https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2191779/archibald-v-braverman/authorities/.
External links
- Text of Archibald v. Braverman, 275 Cal. App. 2d 253 (1969) is available from: CourtListener Google Scholar Justia
 |
Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 | Source: https://handwiki.org/wiki/Social:Archibald_v._Braverman3 views | ↧ Download this article as ZWI file
EncycloReader
is supported by the 
KSF