ÿWPCÆ" Ó‹Û=9/xPV`×S¦9W,F œ,õQ L«QVëX^Þpñ©~NÚÑ•6\$÷è + >•ð‘A³vÊ.®I³­tþ‹÷ðŠ£¢˜G‡µ2CʤMC:‰·äï"92¯Snèë1–Â+Jî-)£¾‚õÈÔC6¾^Áýñº e‚©"bÜ];æ_šÞHfÊæSX{=b”L%ÅÔ­·í`IêÕNÓ²k’1  ¯ ‘DaÕ%Ø&ƒà‡³ôàÑOÅ,Ó¥­\‘Ù¸¡uÍŒí®-ÝRHPë«H〠rà­lrÎÂõýÚUÝÀƒŽáÄÕcpÊĦ—ÛdÂ_Ç–ýÙ¿œhoCËڷÛ‰ÕuukH«f2“yùïBk›b­£ûg°cÁ•áHmJŸÊVDϺÒ^Éý»¨„ÉüÄ—Uõ‡Ù¨«åŽ\ Ûážòb޲aGÆ…ýãároòÜÝ0uÈhGÉÇZÓ³¬éÊÚ, KÃBEÒö iÁ¶“=]º^~õm ?m +|ÆÀè¶GW¯%N×Ñm@7s‰K5Ü•xE‚ºdˆÆy|”y9JÝóž¤Ä:zdZ†•ú‰þ·¯ëu³ È¡Ì9¡í¬'ǬÏ&«F£˜b %\U @b 0ˆ¢^ *UN6w„4ˆ zœÒ è ÷ mù ù Æ ÆÖ Æœ Æb 0D( Nl #Én Å7Eü(þL&4r†¦,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,b¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹¹ 0ëÁÁÁÁ B¬¬ 0¤É D5m D-¢ 0KÏÏ AS Æm 0¤3! 0D×! A«"»(ÆúI Z‹(Times New Roman (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Óvyˆ1Þ (í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular)†N1ê:i¢×+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó˜HP LaserJet 4300 PSØÚÈØØÈØÚ0 »Ý ƒR€¹$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¨Yò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ô}hòòô¨YÔOral€argument€was€heard€in€this€case€on€June€2,€2004,€in€Cookeville,€Putnam€County,€Tennessee,€as€part€ofÐ ° Ðthis€Court's€S.C.A.L.E.S.€(ò òSó óupreme€ò òCó óourt€ò òAó ódvancing€ò òLó óegal€ò òEó óducation€for€ò òSó ótudents)€project.Ô#†ô¨Yòòô}h~#Ô Ý ƒR€¹$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¨Yò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€òòSeeóó€Annotation,€òòRelationship€Between€Victim€and€Plaintiff„Witness€As€Affecting€Right€to€Recover€UnderÐ ° ÐState€Law€For€Negligent€Infliction€of€Emotional€Distress€Due€to€Witnessing€Injury€to€Another€Where€Bystander€PlaintiffÐ tÄ ÐIs€Not€Member€of€Victimððs€Immediate€Familyóó,€98€Ô_ÔA.L.R.Ô_Ô€5òòthóó€609€(2002)€(discussing€cases€involving€spouses,€children,Ð 8ˆ Ðparents,€grandparents,€grandchildren,€siblings,€nieces€and€nephews,€aunts€and€uncles,€relations€by€marriage,€step„children,Ð üL Ðunmarried€co„habitants,€friends,€coworkers,€and€acquaintances,€among€others). BÝ ƒR€¹$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¨Yò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Prior€to€òòThurmanóó,€however,€an€unpublished€Court€of€Appealsðð€decision€had€held€that€a€plaintiff€must€establishÐ ° Ða€close€relationship€to€state€a€claim€for€the€negligent€infliction€of€emotional€distress.€€òòSeeóó€òòBrowning€v.€Ô_ÔVandergriffÔ_Ôóó,€No.Ð tÄ ÐE1999„02711„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Ô_ÔE.S.Ô_Ô,€Jan.€22,€2001).€ COOKEVILLES.C.A.L.E.S.Scarletts BaintortiousWillbanks cmtMedlin foreseeabilityThurmanKestinSetonLourceyScarlett Ô  ' ib014s90ib014s9 .    ƒÝ ƒR€¹$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¨Yò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Indeed,€our€decisions€have€emphasized€that€foreseeability€is€essential€in€analyzing€the€duty€and€causationÐ ° Ðelements€of€a€negligence€claim.€€òòSee,e.g.óó,€òòMcCall€v.€Wilderóó,€913€S.W.2d€150,€153€(Tenn.1995)€(stating€that€there€is€aÐ tÄ Ðduty€to€ð ðact€with€due€care€if€the€foreseeable€probability€and€gravity€of€harm€posed€by€defendant's€conduct€outweigh€theÐ 8ˆ Ðburden€upon€defendant€to€engage€in€alternative€conduct€that€would€have€prevented€the€harmðð).- ù-(|G2€¹$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¨Yò»»Ô d(|3t$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3t$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼»»»ÔÑ8€Q½XXdì»»d8ÑÔ€¼Äl»»¼Ôà@™ ™ ìàÔ‡î×qÄlÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼Äl»îî×q+#ԈРÖ& Ðà@‚‚ ìàHEARD€AT€COOKEVILLE׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׈Ð üL ÐÓ  ÓJune€2,€2004€SessionÐ ^ ÐÔ‡X™h X»¼ÄlÔÌò òÔ#†¼Äl» XX™h›#ÔCINDY€R.€LOURCEY,€òòet€al.óó€v.€Ð  \ ÐESTATE€OF€CHARLES€SCARLETT,€DeceasedÔ‡X™h X»¼ÄlÔó óÐ  p ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€by€Permission€from€the€Court€of€AppealsÐ  p ÐCircuit€Court€for€Wilson€CountyÐ  \  Ðà@@øøìàNo.€12043€€€€€€Clara€Byrd,€JudgeÐ øH  ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<»` AßÐ ¼  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2002„00995„SC„R11„CV€„€Filed€September€8,€2004Ô#†¼Äl» XX™h<#ÔÔ‡X™h X»¼ÄlÔÐ · ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<Ž` AßÐ ß Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Äl» XX™h#ÔÔ€X™h X»¼ÄlÔWe€granted€review€to€determine€(1)€whether€the€complaint€states€a€claim€for€intentional€inflictionÐ ŠÚ Ðof€emotional€distress€when€it€alleges€that€the€defendantððs€conduct€was€outrageous€because€he€shotÐ vÆ Ðhis€wife€and€then€himself€in€plaintiff€Cindy€Ô_ÔLourceyÔ_Ôððs€presence;€and€(2)€whether€the€complaint€statesÐ b² Ða€claim€for€negligent€infliction€of€emotional€distress€when€it€does€not€allege€that€Cindy€Lourcey€wasÐ Nž Ðrelated€to€the€defendant€or€his€wife.€€The€trial€court€dismissed€the€complaint€for€failure€to€state€aÐ :Š Ðclaim€upon€which€relief€may€be€granted€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Rule€of€Civil€Procedure€12.02(6).€Ð &v ÐThe€Court€of€Appeals€reversed€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€after€concluding€that€the€complaint€statesÐ b Ðclaims€for€intentional€and€negligent€infliction€of€emotional€distress.€€After€reviewing€the€record€andÐ þN Ðapplicable€authority,€we€hold€that€the€plaintiffs€state€a€claim€for€intentional€infliction€of€emotionalÐ ê: Ðdistress€because€Cindy€Lourcey€witnessed€an€ð ðoutrageousðð€act,€i.e.,€the€defendantððs€shooting€of€hisÐ Ö& Ðwife€and€himself,€and€that€the€plaintiffs€state€a€claim€for€negligent€infliction€of€emotional€distressÐ Â Ðeven€though€Cindy€Lourcey€is€not€related€to€the€defendant€or€his€wife.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€theÐ ®þ ÐCourt€of€Appealsðð€judgment.€€Ð š ê ÐÌÓªÓò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€Appeal€by€Permission;€Judgment€of€the€Court€of€AppealsÐ r"Â! ÐAffirmed;€Case€Remanded€to€Circuit€Courtó óÐ ^#®" ÐÌòòÓ  ÓE.€Riley€Anderson,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòFrank€F.€Ô_ÔDrowotaÔ_Ô,€III,€C.J.,Ð 6%† $ Ðóóandòò€Ô_ÔAdolphoÔ_Ô€A.€Birch,€Jr.,óó€and€òòWilliam€M.€Barker,€JJ.óó,€joined.€€òòJanice€M.€Holder,óó€J.,€filed€aÐ "&r!% Ðseparate€concurring€opinion.Ð '^"& ÐÌMichele€M.€Ô_ÔBrubakerÔ_Ô,€Parks€T.€Ô_ÔChastainÔ_Ô€and€Stacey€A.€Ô_ÔTerralÔ_Ô,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€theÐ æ(6$( ÐAppellant,€Estate€of€Charles€Scarlett,€Deceased.Ð Ò)"%) ÐÐ ¾*&*ý ÐÔ_ÔDavid€L.€Cooper,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellees,€Cindy€R.€Lourcey€and€Vernon€B.Ð ° ÐLourcey.Ð œì ÐÓ¾ ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÐ tÄ ÐÌòòóóò òòòÓ  ÓÓ  ÓBACKGROUNDóóó óÐ L œ ÐÓcÓÌà  àThe€plaintiffs,€Cindy€Reynolds€Lourcey€and€her€husband,€Vernon€Burton€Lourcey,€filed€aÐ $ t Ðcomplaint€against€the€defendant,€Estate€of€Charles€Scarlett,€in€the€Circuit€Court€for€Wilson€County,Ð  ` ÐTennessee.€€The€complaint€asserted€claims€for€intentional€infliction€of€emotional€distress€andÐ ü L  Ðnegligent€infliction€of€emotional€distress.€€The€allegations€in€the€plaintiffsðð€complaint€are€as€follows:Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àOn€February€5,€2001,€Cindy€Lourcey€was€working€as€a€postal€carrier€for€the€United€StatesÐ À  ÐPostal€Service.€€While€delivering€mail€by€postal€vehicle€on€Rome€Pike€in€Lebanon,€Tennessee,Ð ¬ü  ÐLourcey€encountered€Charles€Scarlett€and€his€wife,€Joanne€Scarlett,€who€was€nude€from€the€waistÐ ˜è  Ðup,€in€the€middle€of€Rome€Pike.€€When€Lourcey€stopped€her€vehicle€to€provide€assistance,€CharlesÐ „Ô  ÐScarlett€told€her€that€his€wife€was€having€a€seizure.€€As€Lourcey€used€her€cell€phone€to€callÐ pÀ Ðemergency€911€to€request€help,€Charles€Scarlett€pulled€out€a€pistol€and€shot€his€wife€in€the€head.€€HeÐ \¬ Ðthen€turned€and€faced€Lourcey,€pointed€the€pistol€at€his€head,€pulled€the€trigger,€and€killed€himself.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àAccording€to€the€complaint,€Charles€Ô_ÔScarlettÔ_Ôððs€conduct€created€causes€of€action€forÐ  p Ðintentional€and€negligent€infliction€of€emotional€distress.€€The€complaint€alleges€that€Cindy€LourceyÐ  \ Ðsuffered€from€post„traumatic€stress€disorder€and€major€depression€following€the€incident€and€wasÐ øH Ðunable€to€return€to€work.€€In€addition,€she€suffered€physical€injury€and€impairment,€mental€injury€andÐ ä4 Ðimpairment,€pain€and€suffering,€medical€expenses,€lost€wages,€and€lost€earning€capacity.€€TheÐ Ð  Ðcomplaint€also€alleges€that€Vernon€Lourcey€suffered€the€loss€of€consortium€and€the€loss€ofÐ ¼  Ðcompanionship€of€his€wife.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àThe€defendant,€Estate€of€Charles€Scarlett,€moved€to€dismiss€the€complaint€on€the€groundsÐ €Ð Ðthat€it€failed€to€state€a€claim€pursuant€to€Rule€12.02(6)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.€Ð l¼ ÐThe€motion€stated€that€the€claim€for€intentional€infliction€of€emotional€distress€should€be€dismissedÐ X ¨ Ðbecause€Charles€Ô_ÔScarlettÔ_Ôððs€conduct€was€not€outrageous€and€that€the€claim€for€negligent€infliction€ofÐ D!” Ðemotional€distress€should€be€dismissed€because€Cindy€Lourcey€was€not€closely€related€to€either€ofÐ 0"€  Ðthe€Scarletts.€€The€plaintiffs€responded€that€Ô_ÔScarlettÔ_Ôððs€intentional€acts€of€attempted€murder€andÐ #l! Ðsuicide€were€sufficiently€outrageous€to€support€the€intentional€infliction€of€emotional€distress€claimÐ $X" Ðand€that€being€related€was€not€a€required€element€for€the€negligent€infliction€of€emotional€distressÐ ô$D # Ðclaim.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àFollowing€a€hearing,€the€trial€court€granted€the€defendantððs€motion€and€dismissed€theÐ ¸'#& Ðcomplaint.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€reversed€the€trial€courtððs€judgment,€however,€and€remanded€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðcase€to€the€trial€court€for€further€proceedings€on€the€claims€for€both€intentional€and€negligentÐ )à$( Ðinfliction€of€emotional€distress.€€We€thereafter€granted€this€appeal.€Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà@òò&ìàò òòòANALYSISóóó óˆÐ ° ÐÌòòò òÓ  ÓóóStandard€of€Reviewó óÐ ˆØ ÐÓÓÌà  àA€motion€to€dismiss€a€complaint€for€failure€to€state€a€claim€pursuant€to€Rule€12.02(6)€of€theÐ `° ÐTennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€states€that€the€allegations€in€the€complaint,€accepted€as€true,€failÐ L œ Ðto€establish€a€cause€of€action€for€which€relief€can€be€granted.€€òòLeach€v.€Tayloróó,€124€S.W.3d€87,€90Ð 8 ˆ Ð(Tenn.€2004).€€A€motion€to€dismiss€admits€the€truth€of€the€relevant€and€material€allegations€containedÐ $ t Ðin€the€complaint.€€òòId.óó€€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àWhen€reviewing€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€of€a€complaint€pursuant€to€Rule€12.02(6),€weÐ è 8  Ðaccept€the€factual€allegations€contained€in€the€complaint€as€true.€€òòId.óó€€The€issue€presents€a€questionÐ Ô$  Ðof€law,€which€we€review€de€novo€without€according€a€presumption€of€correctness€to€the€conclusionsÐ À  Ðreached€below.€€òòId.óó€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌÓ  Óò òIntentional€Infliction€of€Emotional€Distressó óÐ „Ô  ÐÓ+#ÓÌà  àThe€defendant€first€argues€that€the€trial€court€properly€dismissed€the€complaint€for€failure€toÐ \¬ Ðstate€a€claim€for€intentional€infliction€of€emotional€distress€because€the€conduct€of€Charles€ScarlettÐ H˜ Ðwas€not€ð ðoutrageousðð€as€a€matter€of€law.€€The€defendant€asserts€that€ð ðlife€is€full€of€scenes€of€tragedyððÐ 4„ Ðand€argues€that€ð ðthere€was€no€outrageous€conduct€directed€towards€Lourcey.ððÐ  p ÐÌà  àThe€plaintiffs€respond€that€the€complaint€states€a€claim€for€intentional€infliction€of€emotionalÐ øH Ðdistress€based€on€the€actions€of€Charles€Scarlett,€which€were€outrageous.€€They€also€argue€thatÐ ä4 ÐTennessee€law€does€not€require€that€the€outrageous€conduct€be€directed€at€a€plaintiff€but€that€theÐ Ð  Ðcomplaint€is€sufficient€even€if€the€law€requires€that€the€conduct€be€so€directed€because,€in€this€case,Ð ¼  ÐÔ_ÔScarlettÔ_Ôððs€conduct€was€directed€at€Cindy€Lourcey.€€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àWe€begin€the€analysis€of€these€issues€by€first€examining€the€elements€required€for€intentionalÐ €Ð Ðinfliction€of€emotional€distress.€€We€first€recognized€the€tort€of€outrageous€conduct€in€òòMedlin€v.Ð l¼ ÐAllied€Inv.€Co.óó,€398€S.W.2d€270,€274€(Tenn.€1966),€where€we€adopted€the€language€of€theÐ X ¨ ÐRestatement€(Second)€of€Torts,€section€46,€which€provided:€ð ðOne€who€by€extreme€and€outrageousÐ D!” Ðconduct€.€.€.€causes€severe€emotional€distress€to€another€is€subject€to€liability€for€such€emotionalÐ 0"€  Ðdistress,€and€if€bodily€harm€[to€the€other]€results€from€it,€for€such€bodily€harm.ðð€€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àTo€state€a€claim€for€intentional€infliction€of€emotional€distress,€a€plaintiff€must€establish€that:Ð ô$D # Ð(1)€the€defendantððs€conduct€was€intentional€or€reckless;€(2)€the€defendantððs€conduct€was€soÐ à%0!$ Ðoutrageous€that€it€cannot€be€tolerated€by€civilized€society;€and€(3)€the€defendantððs€conduct€resultedÐ Ì&"% Ðin€serious€mental€injury€to€the€plaintiff.€€òòBain€v.€Wellsóó,€936€S.W.2d€618,€622€(Tenn.€1997).Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àIn€describing€these€elements,€we€have€emphasized€that€it€is€not€sufficient€that€a€defendantÐ )à$( Ðð ðhas€acted€with€an€intent€which€is€tortious€or€even€criminal,€or€that€he€has€intended€to€inflictÐ |*Ì%) Ðemotional€distress.ðð€€òòId.óó€(citations€omitted).€€A€plaintiff€must€in€addition€show€that€the€defendantððsÐ h+¸&* Ðconduct€was€ð ðso€outrageous€in€character,€and€so€extreme€in€degree,€as€to€go€beyond€all€possibleÐ ° Ðbounds€of€decency€and€to€be€regarded€as€atrocious,€and€utterly€intolerable€in€a€civilized€community.ðð€Ð œì ÐòòMiller€v.€Willbanksóó,€8€S.W.3d€607,€614€(Tenn.€1999)€(quoting€Restatement€(Second)€of€Torts€ðð€46Ð ˆØ Ðcmt.€d€(1965)).Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àApplying€the€foregoing€principles,€we€conclude€that€the€allegations€in€the€plaintiffsððÐ L œ Ðcomplaint,€when€accepted€as€true,€state€a€claim€for€intentional€infliction€of€emotional€distress.€€TheÐ 8 ˆ Ðcomplaint€alleges€that€Charles€Ô_ÔScarlettÔ_Ôððs€conduct€was€intentional€and€that€it€caused€Cindy€LourceyÐ $ t Ðserious€mental€injury€in€the€form€of€post„traumatic€stress€disorder,€depression,€and€related€problems.€Ð  ` ÐMoreover,€the€complaint€describes€conduct€that€is€ð ðoutrageousðð€under€the€standards€discussed€inÐ ü L  ÐòòBainóóand€òòMilleróó.€€To€illustrate,€Charles€Scarlett€told€Cindy€Lourcey€that€his€wife€was€having€aÐ è 8  Ðseizure;€as€Lourcey€was€calling€911€for€help,€Scarlett€shot€his€wife€in€the€head,€turned€to€faceÐ Ô$  ÐLourcey,€put€a€pistol€to€his€head,€pulled€the€trigger,€and€killed€himself.€€This€conduct,€which€occurredÐ À  Ðin€Ô_ÔLourceyÔ_Ôððs€immediate€presence€and€involved€her€as€a€participant,€was€not€simply€a€tragedy€that€isÐ ¬ü  Ðcommon€to€daily€life€as€asserted€by€the€defendant.€€Indeed,€the€complaint€clearly€alleges€conduct€thatÐ ˜è  Ðwas€outrageous€in€character,€extreme€in€degree,€beyond€all€possible€bounds€of€decency,€and€utterlyÐ „Ô  Ðintolerable€in€a€civilized€society.€€òòSeeóó€òòMilleróó,€8€S.W.3d€at€614.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àIn€reaching€this€conclusion,€we€need€not€address€the€defendantððs€argument€that€a€claim€forÐ H˜ Ðintentional€infliction€of€emotional€distress€under€Tennessee€law€requires€that€the€alleged€outrageousÐ 4„ Ðconduct€be€ð ðdirected€atðð€the€plaintiff.€€Assuming€there€is€such€a€requirement,€a€question€we€do€notÐ  p Ðdecide€today,€the€allegations€in€the€plaintiffsðð€complaint,€when€accepted€as€true,€demonstrate€thatÐ  \ ÐÔ_ÔScarlettÔ_Ôððs€conduct€was€directed€at€Cindy€Lourcey.€€The€complaint€states€that€Charles€Scarlett€toldÐ øH ÐLourcey€that€his€wife€was€having€a€seizure€and€that€he€knew€Lourcey€was€seeking€help€in€responseÐ ä4 Ðto€his€statement.€€The€complaint€further€states€that€Lourcey€was€in€close€proximity€when€Scarlett€shotÐ Ð  Ðhis€wife€and€that€Scarlett€turned€to€face€Lourcey€before€shooting€himself€in€the€head.€€Accordingly,Ð ¼  Ðwe€conclude€that€the€plaintiffsðð€complaint€states€a€claim€upon€which€relief€could€be€granted€pursuantÐ ¨ø Ðto€Rule€12.02(6)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€for€intentional€infliction€of€emotionalÐ ”ä Ðdistress.Ð €Ð ÐÌò òÓ  ÓNegligent€Infliction€of€Emotional€Distressó óÐ X ¨ ÐÓ„:ÓÌà  àThe€defendant€next€argues€that€the€trial€court€properly€dismissed€the€complaint€for€failure€toÐ 0"€  Ðstate€a€claim€for€negligent€infliction€of€emotional€distress€because€the€plaintiff,€Cindy€Lourcey,€wasÐ #l! Ðnot€closely€related€to€Charles€Scarlett€or€his€wife.€€The€plaintiffs,€however,€contend€that€theÐ $X" Ðcomplaint€alleges€the€necessary€elements€for€negligent€infliction€of€emotional€distress€and€that€aÐ ô$D # Ðrelationship€is€not€required€for€a€plaintiff€to€establish€a€claim€for€negligent€infliction€of€emotionalÐ à%0!$ Ðdistress.€Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àTo€resolve€this€issue,€we€begin€the€analysis€by€reviewing€the€elements€of€a€claim€forÐ ¤(ô#' Ðnegligent€infliction€of€emotional€distress.€€In€Tennessee,€such€a€claim€requires€that€the€plaintiffÐ )à$( Ðestablish€the€elements€of€a€general€negligence€claim:€(1)€duty,€(2)€breach€of€duty,€(3)€injury€or€loss,Ð |*Ì%) Ð(4)€causation€in€fact,€and€(5)€proximate€causation.€€òòSeeóó€òòCamper€v.€Minoróó,€915€S.W.2d€437,€446Ð h+¸&* Ð(Tenn.€1996).€€In€addition,€the€plaintiff€must€establish€the€existence€of€a€serious€or€severe€emotionalÐ ° Ðinjury€that€is€supported€by€expert€medical€or€scientific€evidence.€€òòId.óó;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòRamsey€v.€Beaversóó,Ð œì Ð931€S.W.2d€527,€Ô_Ô531„32Ô_Ô€(Tenn.€1996).Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àIn€discussing€these€elements€in€òòRamseyóó,€we€clarified€that€a€negligent€infliction€of€emotionalÐ `° Ðdistress€claim€premised€upon€witnessing€the€death€or€injury€of€a€third€person€requires€a€plaintiff€toÐ L œ Ðshow€that€a€ð ðthird€personððs€death€or€injury€and€plaintiffððs€emotional€injury€were€proximate€andÐ 8 ˆ Ðforeseeable€results€of€defendantððs€negligence.ðð€€931€S.W.2d€at€531.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€We€commented€thatÐ $ t Ðforeseeability€required€consideration€of€a€number€of€relevant€factors€but€that€only€two€of€them€wereÐ  ` Ðessential:€(1)€the€plaintiffððs€physical€location€showed€ð ðsufficient€proximity€to€the€injury-producingÐ ü L  Ðevent€to€allow€sensory€observationðð€by€the€plaintiff,€and€(2)€the€injury€ð ðwas,€or€reasonably€wasÐ è 8  Ðperceived€to€be,€serious€or€fatal.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Still€another€factor€relating€to€foreseeability€is€the€plaintiffððsÐ Ô$  Ðrelationship€to€the€injured€party.€€òòId.óó€at€531„32.Ð À  ÐÌà  àIn€applying€our€decision€in€òòRamseyóó,€the€Court€of€Appeals€has€correctly€recognized€that€theÐ ˜è  Ðelement€of€foreseeability€does€not€òòrequireóó€a€plaintiff€to€establish€a€relationship€to€the€injured€thirdÐ „Ô  Ðparty.€€òòSeeóó€òòThurman€v.€Sellersóó,€62€S.W.3d€145,€163€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2001).׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€òòThurmanóó,€theÐ pÀ Ðappellate€court€observed€that€the€key€factors€for€establishing€foreseeability€are€whether€a€plaintiffððsÐ \¬ Ðproximity€to€the€injury„causing€event€allowed€for€ð ðsensory€observationðð€and€whether€the€injury€ð ðwas,Ð H˜ Ðor€was€reasonably€perceived€to€be,€serious€or€fatal.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€163.€€Moreover,€in€noting€that€òòRamseyóóÐ 4„ Ðdid€not€expressly€state€that€a€plaintiff€must€have€had€a€close€relationship€with€the€third€party€toÐ  p Ðestablish€foreseeability,€the€intermediate€court€explained€that€ð ðthe€nature€of€the€plaintiffððsÐ  \ Ðrelationship€with€the€third€party€should€play€a€pivotal€role€in€determining€the€òòamountóó€of€damages€toÐ øH Ðaward,€rather€than€being€a€prerequisite€for€establishing€foreseeability€.€.€.€.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€164.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àIn€our€view,€the€intermediate€courtððs€analysis€in€òòThurmanóó€properly€recognized€that€a€plaintiffÐ ¼  Ðis€not€required€to€establish€a€close€relationship€to€the€injured€party€to€state€a€claim€for€negligentÐ ¨ø Ðinfliction€of€emotional€distress.€€There€are€several€reasons€why€a€relationship€is€not€required.€€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àFirst,€our€decision€in€òòRamseyóó€rejected€a€rigid€ð ðzone€of€dangerðð€requirement€and€clarified€thatÐ l¼ Ða€plaintiff€must€establish€that€his€or€her€injuries€were€foreseeable€in€accordance€with€traditionalÐ X ¨ Ðnegligence€principles.€€Although€we€discussed€several€considerations€in€analyzing€foreseeability€inÐ D!” ÐòòRamseyóó,€including€the€plaintiffððs€relationship€to€the€injured€party,€we€did€not€hold€that€the€plaintiffððsÐ 0"€  Ðrelationship€to€the€injured€party€was€itself€an€element€for€stating€or€establishing€a€claim€for€negligentÐ #l! Ðinfliction€of€emotional€distress.€€òòSeeóó€òòRamseyóó,€931€S.W.2d€at€531.€€Ð $X" ÐÔ_Ô‡à  àSecond,€a€review€of€òòCamper€v.€Minoróó€shows€that€we€remanded€the€plaintiffððs€claim€forÐ ° Ðnegligent€infliction€of€emotional€distress€for€the€application€of€general€negligence€principles€evenÐ œì Ðthough€the€plaintiff€in€that€case€had€no€relationship€to€the€injured€party.€€òòCamperóó,€915€S.W.2d€at€446.€Ð ˆØ ÐIndeed,€similar€to€the€present€case,€the€plaintiff€in€òòCamperóówas€the€driver€of€a€truck€whose€claim€wasÐ tÄ Ðbased€on€mental€harm€suffered€after€seeing€the€dead€body€of€an€unrelated€motorist€who€was€killedÐ `° Ðin€an€accident.€€òòId.óó€at€439.€€In€sum,€there€is€simply€no€basis€upon€which€to€conclude€that€òòRamseyóó,Ð L œ Ðwhich€was€released€only€nine€months€after€òòCamperóó€by€the€same€Court,€adopted€without€commentÐ 8 ˆ Ðan€entirely€new€element€for€stating€a€claim€of€negligent€infliction€of€emotional€distress.€€Ð $ t ÐÌà  àFinally,€we€observe€that€courts€in€other€jurisdictions€have€encountered€numerous€obstaclesÐ ü L  Ðwhen€defining€a€ð ðrelationshipðð€for€negligent€infliction€of€emotional€distress€cases€and€in€applyingÐ è 8  Ðthat€element€to€myriad€cases€involving€relatives€by€blood,€relatives€by€marriage,€co„habitants,Ð Ô$  Ðfriends,€and€acquaintances.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€As€one€commentator€has€said:Ð À  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àWhatever€the€articulated€relational€standard,€and€however€it€mayÐ ˜è  Ðgovern,€courts€willing€to€recognize€the€concept€of€a€bystanderððs€claimÐ „Ô  Ðin€a€context€narrower€than€a€generally€available€right€to€sue€forÐ pÀ Ðnegligent€infliction€of€emotional€distress€have€no€difficulty€applyingÐ \¬ Ðit€where€certain€relationships€inform€the€claim,€such€as€parent,€child,Ð H˜ Ðsibling,€and€spouse.€€òòThe€courts,€however,€seem€to€shrink€fromÐ 4„ Ðapplying€the€concept€to€more€remote€relationships,€even€to€those€thatÐ  p Ðare,€potentially,€as€genuine€and€deep€as€those€of€parent,€child,€sibling,Ð  \ Ðor€spouse,€but€which€have€no€special€legal€sanction€or€consanguinealÐ øH Ðaffinityóó.€Ðä4` x` x ÐÌHoward€H.€Kestin,€òòThe€Bystanderððs€Cause€of€Action€for€Emotional€Injury:€Reflections€on€theÐ ¼  ÐRelational€Eligibility€Standardóó,€26€Seton€Hall€L.€Rev.€512,€526„27€(1996)€(emphasis€added).€Ð ¨ø ÐBecause€of€these€interpretive€problems,€we€believe€that€the€better„reasoned€approach,€which€isÐ ”ä Ðconsistent€with€our€previous€decisions€in€òòCamperóó€and€òòRamseyóó,€is€to€hold€that€the€presence€or€absenceÐ €Ð Ðof€a€relationship€between€the€plaintiff€and€an€injured€third€party€is€relevant€to€the€duty€and€causationÐ l¼ Ðelements€of€a€negligent€infliction€of€emotional€distress€claim,€as€well€as€to€the€question€of€damages,Ð X ¨ Ðbut€is€not€dispositive€of€such€a€claim.€€òòSeeóóòòid.óó€at€521€n.43€(discussing€cases€that€have€not€adoptedÐ D!” Ðð ðrelationshipðð€as€an€element€of€negligent€infliction€of€emotional€distress€claims).Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àIn€applying€the€foregoing€principles,€we€conclude€that€the€allegations€in€the€plaintiffsððÐ $X" Ðcomplaint,€when€taken€as€true,€state€a€claim€for€negligent€infliction€of€emotional€distress.€€WithÐ ô$D # Ðregard€to€duty,€which€must€be€determined€by€the€trial€court€as€a€matter€of€law,€the€complaint€allegesÐ à%0!$ Ðsufficient€facts€for€the€court€to€conclude€that€the€foreseeability€and€gravity€of€the€potential€harm€toÐ Ì&"% ÐCindy€Lourcey€outweighed€the€burden€on€Charles€Scarlett€to€prevent€the€harm€from€occurring.€€òòSeeóóÐ ° ÐòòMcCall€v.€Wilderóó,€913€S.W.2d€150,€153€(Tenn.€1995).€€Indeed,€the€complaint€alleges€that€ScarlettÐ œì Ðspoke€to€Cindy€Lourcey€and€implicitly€requested€help,€that€Scarlett€knew€that€Lourcey€was€in€closeÐ ˆØ Ðphysical€proximity,€that€Lourcey€saw€Scarlett€shoot€his€wife,€that€Scarlett€turned€to€face€Lourcey,Ð tÄ Ðand€that€Scarlett€shot€himself€in€the€head.€€òòSeeóó€òòRamseyóó,€931€S.W.2d€at€531.€€In€addition,€with€regardÐ `° Ðto€causation,€which€must€be€determined€by€the€trier€of€fact,€these€and€other€facts€alleged€in€theÐ L œ Ðcomplaint€are€sufficient€to€establish€a€claim€that€Cindy€Lourcey€suffered€serious€or€severe€mentalÐ 8 ˆ Ðinjuries€and€that€Charles€Scarlettððs€conduct€was€the€actual€cause€and€the€proximate€cause€of€theÐ $ t Ðinjuries.€€òòSeeóó€òòCamperóó,€915€S.W.2d€at€446.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€we€conclude€that€the€plaintiffsðð€complaint€states€a€claim€upon€which€relief€mayÐ è 8  Ðbe€granted€pursuant€to€Rule€12.02(6)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€for€negligentÐ Ô$  Ðinfliction€of€emotional€distress.Ð À  ÐÌÓPÓò òòòCONCLUSIONó óóóÐ ˜è  ÐÓPcÓÓ  ÓÌà  àAfter€reviewing€the€record€and€applicable€authority,€Ô‡XQ½X XX™hÔwe€hold€that€Ô#†X™h XXXQ½éc#Ôthe€plaintiffs€state€a€claimÐ pÀ Ðas€required€by€Rule€12.02(6)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€for€intentional€infliction€ofÐ \¬ Ðemotional€distress€because€Cindy€Lourcey€witnessed€an€ð ðoutrageousðð€act,€i.e.,€the€defendantððsÐ H˜ Ðshooting€of€his€wife€and€himself,€and€that€the€plaintiffs€state€a€claim€as€required€by€Rule€12.02(6)Ð 4„ Ðof€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€for€negligent€infliction€of€emotional€distress€even€thoughÐ  p ÐCindy€Lourcey€was€not€related€to€the€defendant€or€his€wife.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€Court€ofÐ  \ ÐAppealsðð€judgment€and€remand€this€case€to€the€trial€court€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€thisÐ øH Ðopinion.€€The€costs€of€the€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€defendant„appellant,€Estate€of€Charles€Scarlett,€forÐ ä4 Ðwhich€execution€shall€issue€if€necessary.Ð Ð  ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_________________________________€Ð €Ð Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àE.€RILEY€ANDERSON,€JUSTICEÐ l¼ Ð