Considering the circumstances of the case, the courts will more than likely conclude that Mr. Reed can, in fact, prove that he meets the requirement for presence and was contemporaneous and sensory observant of his child’s incident. In order for one to establish a presence, the plaintiff must prove, coupled with the other elements of the (NEID) claim, that during the time of his child’s injury, he was sensory and contemporaneously observant, and did not learn about it from a third party, after the fact. Krouse v. Graham, 562 P.2d 1032 (Cal. 1977). As we have seen in Krouse, even if an individual did not visually perceive the injury, as Krouse did not, however observed it within moments of it happening, that individual could still be considered present. Id at 1022. If Mr. Reed is able to prove to the court that he contemporaneously observed the injury, and had sensory perception of it, he would satisfy the requirement necessary to establish the…show more content… Horn, the court ultimately denied recovery to the wife who was not present at the scene of the accident and was unaware of her husband’s injury until summoned to the hospital emergency room by a third party. Deboe v. Horn, 16 Cal.App.3d 221, 94 Cal. Rptr. 77 (1971), as cited in Krouse v. Graham, 562 P.2d at 1031. Here, it is clear why Deboe was unable to establish a presence. To begin with, we have already established that one must have a sensory and contemporaneous observance of the accident in order to establish presence. Because she was not there, and had to be summoned to the hospital by a third-party and did not witness the injury-producing event as it were happening, it is fair to say that she failed to prove at minimal, a close proximity of the event. Again, because she failed to prove proximity and was not sensory or contemporaneously observant of the accident as well as unaware until after the fact, she was unable to meet the requirements to establish presence for the (NEID)
