Rightness Reasoning In The Supreme Court Case Of Amaya V.

The U.S. civil legal system is perhaps the most refined legal system in the world and is constantly in a pursuit of justice that follows society’s ideals. The system however is not set in stone and is not perfect or correct all the time. In all civil cases we witness the laws of reasoning and through these laws we can adjust an unfair or incorrect law. In a specific case known as Dillon V. Legg we see a change in law. The case was originally determined by the district court of California based off authoritative reasoning. The plaintiff did not like the outcome of the case and appealed from the district courts decision. From that point the Supreme Court of California determined the case was to be based on rightness reasoning rather than a past …show more content…
1963 in regards of rightness reasoning. The case of Dillion V. Legg does present a mother who claimed emotional distress, but was not within the zone of danger. The sister, however is an exception to the previous ruling of Amaya v. Home and was in the zone of danger. But, the supreme court using rightness reasoning determined it would be wrongful to grant judgement to the sister rather than the mother because of a few yards from the zone of danger. Therefore, the concept of the zone danger rule in this case was to be denied by the supreme court and did not rely solely on authoritative reasoning but rightness …show more content…
So the supreme court created a new set of three laws which related rightness reasoning and would expand the duty. The three laws are: “1. Whether the plaintiff was located near the scene of the accident. 2. Whether the shock resulted from a direct emotional impact of the defendant. 3.Whether the plaintiff and the victim were closely related or had any distant relationship”. (Page 6, 3rd paragraph.) The court determined that these rightness reasoning rules were workable and determine who is liable to a plaintiff in future