If Rodriguez is visually impaired but hears the accident, can he recover for emotional distress?

In situations involving emotional distress claims, the key factor is typically the proximity to the event and the nature of the witness's perception of it. In this case, Rodriguez, despite being visually impaired, heard the accident occurring. The law recognizes that auditory perception can provide sufficient sensory experience to substantiate a claim for emotional distress.

The rationale behind this is that if a person perceives a traumatic event through their senses—such as sound—they can be impacted emotionally, and the law acknowledges this impact. Notably, the requirement for recovery does not solely hinge on visual perception; individuals can experience distress from events they cannot physically see, especially when they have other means of perceiving the event.

Thus, Rodriguez’s auditory experience of the accident can validate his emotional distress claim, allowing recovery based on the trauma he perceived through hearing. This principle accommodates various circumstances in which a person might suffer emotional harm, irrespective of the limitations of their other senses.