Legal Opinion

Moore v. Eckman

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided March 6, 2009No. 08-0414PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BAKER, Justice.

Defendant Pekin Insurance Company appeals in advance of judgment the district court’s ruling denying its motion for partial summary judgment. Pekin claims that the district court erred in denying it summary judgment on Carole Moore’s bystander liability claim because under Iowa law, a bystander must have had a sensory and contemporaneous observance of the injury-causing accident to recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Pe-kin argues that Plaintiff Carole Moore did not actually witness her son’s accident which resulted in his death, but arrived immediately…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
  2. Dillon v. LeggCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  3. Thing v. La ChusaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
  4. Bowen v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1994
  5. Barnhill v. DavisSupreme Court of Iowa · 1981

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Miranda v. SaidSupreme Court of Iowa · 2013
  2. Moore v. EckmanSupreme Court of Iowa · 2009
  3. Wilson v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, IncDistrict Court, N.D. Iowa · 2024

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API