Can a medical professional recover for emotional distress after witnessing patient injury caused by equipment they operated? Straub v. Fisher and Paykel Health Care Explained

Background and Facts

Respiratory therapist Tenne Straub was treating patient Emma Boney using a ventilator system that included a humidifier manufactured by Fisher and Paykel Health Care. When Straub reconnected the delivery tube after moving the patient, she failed to install the “Y” attachment that allowed the patient to exhale. As a result, Boney suffered barotrauma and died while Straub watched. Straub claimed this traumatic experience caused severe emotional distress leading to job loss, divorce, and criminal charges after she attempted to shoot her husband.

Key Legal Issues

The case presented two primary questions: (1) whether Straub could recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress based on witnessing injury to a third person when she operated the instrumentality causing the harm, and (2) whether she could pursue a strict products liability claim for emotional distress suffered while witnessing injury to another. Straub argued the humidifier was defectively designed without a pressure release valve.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court applied the zone of danger test from Restatement (Second) of Torts § 313, which requires that a plaintiff be in actual physical peril to recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The court rejected California’s Dillon rule that allows bystander recovery under certain circumstances, calling it “artificial and unworkable.” The court emphasized that operating allegedly defective equipment does not transform a bystander into a direct victim entitled to recovery. For strict liability claims, the court similarly found that manufacturers cannot reasonably foresee emotional distress to operators who are not themselves at risk of physical injury.

Practice Implications

This decision establishes clear boundaries for emotional distress claims in Utah, requiring actual physical peril rather than mere proximity to harm or operation of equipment. Practitioners should note that Utah’s restrictive approach differs from more liberal jurisdictions that allow bystander recovery. The ruling also confirms that foreseeability principles apply equally to both negligence and strict liability claims for emotional distress, limiting manufacturer liability to situations involving direct physical risk to the plaintiff.