In the scenario where Rodriguez witnesses the accident, can he recover for emotional distress?

Rodriguez's potential recovery for emotional distress hinges on his status as a direct witness to the accident. In tort law, especially concerning claims of emotional distress, the ability to recover often depends on whether the witness is directly involved in the incident or has a sufficiently close connection to the event.

When Rodriguez witnesses the accident, he is considered a direct observer. In many jurisdictions, being a direct witness allows individuals to claim recovery for emotional distress resulting from witnessing a traumatic event, provided they meet certain conditions. These conditions can include being in close proximity to the event, and having a close relationship with those involved.

The other options do not align with the established principles surrounding emotional distress claims. For instance, simply stating that emotional distress claims don’t apply overlooks the nuanced factors that permit recovery in cases where the witness is directly involved. Additionally, stating recovery is only possible if he sees injuries on site narrows the criteria unnecessarily; emotional distress claims can arise from witnessing the accident itself, not exclusively from seeing injuries. The assertion that he must be more than a bystander would disregard the legal recognition of the rights of direct witnesses to seek recovery for emotional harm caused by witnessing a traumatic event.

Thus, option A is correct because Rodriguez’s status as a direct witness