Parents Claim Distress from 'Reckless' Haircut

The parents of a Mescalero Apache girl who was allegedly injured by having her hair cut on the set of a TV miniseries may not have a case for emotional distress damages unless they actually witnessed the "injury-producing event."

An unnamed stylist took the scissors to Christina Ponce, then 8, while she was working as an extra on TNT's "Into the West," leaving her looking like a "male Indian child," her parents claim in a federal suit filed in Albuquerque, N.M.

The haircut was "in reckless violation of and total insensitivity to the religious customs and beliefs of Plaintiffs," the complaint says, because, according to tribal tradition, "an Apache maiden cannot cut her hair until the Coming of Age ceremony which is held after the child reaches puberty."

"Basically, this is a bar mitzvah for female Indian children," plaintiffs' attorney J. Robert Beauvais (Ruidoso, N.M.) tells ON POINT.

Danny and Tina Ponce seek $250,000 in emotional distress damages for their daughter from Turner Films. More problematic is their claim that they "had a conscious [sic] sensory perception of the injury to their daughter sufficient to constitute negligent infliction of emotional distress."

The New Mexico Supreme Court has recognized a bystander claim for NIED where, among other things, "the plaintiff suffered severe shock from the contemporaneous sensory perception of the accident." Folz v. State, 797 P.2d 246 (1990).

But in Fernandez v. Walgreen Hastings Co., 968 P.2d 774 (1998), the court said the bystander must "observe more than the victim's injury," ruling that

to prove contemporary sensory perception of the accident, the bystander must observe a sudden, traumatic, injury-producing event at the time of its occurrence or soon after.

Neither of Christina Ponce's parents were present when she had the haircut. But Beauvais says the mother, who was elsewhere on the set, "became aware of it very shortly" thereafter when Christina, "extremely upset," came to her.

The combination of "temporal proximity" and the trauma of seeing her daughter "still suffering" from the injury means "there's certainly an argument" for the mother's NIED claim, Beauvais says.

3/20/06

Feedback