Subjects were 96 eligible jurors from two California counties. They were presented with a case vignette that consisted of one of the three elements for bystander recovery for emotional distress as outlined in the California case of Dillon v. Legg. The three elements are whether the plaintiff was located near the scene of the accident, as contrasted with one who was a distance from it; whether the shock resulted from direct impact upon the plaintiff from the sensory and contemporaneous observance of the accident, as contrasted with learning of the accident after its occurrence; and whether plaintiff and victim were closely related, as contrasted with an absence of any relationship or the presence of only a distant relationship. Study participants were more likely to believe a plaintiff had a right to sue for damages in cases in which there was a close relationship between the bystander and a direct victim and the bystander was within the zone of physical danger. A plaintiff's sensory and contemporaneous perception of an accident did not significantly influence subjects' judgements. 3 tables and 20 references