A person who witnesses or comes to the scene of an accident and voluntarily renders aid to the victim does not where, as the result of a failed rescue attempt, the rescuer have a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress suffers severe emotional distress but has no familial or other preexisting relationship to the victim. This is so even where the resultant emotional distress lead to further physical problems. So holds the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in an exhaustive examination of the law of torts.

On August 27, 1990, Michael Migliori came upon a woman who had been struck by a van. He immediately proceeded to administer CPR to the victim who was bleeding from her eyes, ears, nose and mouth as well as from other injured areas of her body. Although he was able to restore the victim's heartbeat on two brief occasions, she was ultimately pronounced dead at Massachusetts General Hospital.

The plaintiff thereafter developed various symptoms of emotional distress that led to further physical problems. He eventually brought a diversity action in federal court (seeking damages for the negligent infliction of emotional distress) only to have the issue of his standing to sue certified to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts for an authoritative answer under Massachusetts law. The court examined the familial, spatial, and temporal relationships which exist between witnesses and victims. For example, in terms of familial relationships, a mother may recover if she witnesses an accident involving her son but not necessarily a perfect stranger. Analogously, in terms of temporal limits, recovery has been denied to a mother who did not see her son's injured body until twenty four hours after the injury causing accident.

The plaintiff in this case sought to have the court expand the class of possible claimants to include rescuers, despite the fact that this particular plaintiff was not related to the victim and came upon the scene sometime after the accident occurred. Affirming its reluctance to expand the class of bystanders who may recover for emotional distress, the court narrowly held that under Massachusetts law, a person who voluntarily renders aid to a victim to whom he or she has no familial or other preexisting relationship does not have a cognizable claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress where (1) the rescue attempt fails and, as a result (2) the rescuer suffers severe emotional distress which (3) further leads to physical problems.