1. Legal Research and Writing
Internal Memorandum
To: Ruth Biering
From: David Aicholtz
Date: 15 May 2013
Re: Walter and Theresa Davidson
Statement of Assignment and Contemplation of Action
Per your request dated 4 February 2013, I have reviewed the facts as presented, and as
outlined herein have determined that there is a strong cause of action for Negligent Infliction of
Emotional Distress (hereinafter referred to as NIED) and the possibility of Intentional Infliction
of Emotional Distress (hereinafter referred to as IIED).
Statement of Facts and Prior Judicial Proceedings
Sometime in the early hours of 29 October presumably between 12:00AM and 2:00AM,
Thomas Davidson (son of clients), was purported to have been fatally shot to death by his friend
Michael West as he lay sleeping on the couch located in the living room of the house occupied
by West and which is owned by West’s mother Betty Jefferson and located in Avila Beach, CA.
There is evidence that West may have been under the influence of alcohol at the time of the
shooting.
Following the shooting West apparently placed Davidson’s body in a sleeping bag and
concealed it within a hole in the kitchen that connected to the laundry room in the garage of

2. West’s home. West then telephoned Jefferson at approximately 10:00AM on the morning of the
29th to inform her of the shooting and requested that the two meet at PG&E parking lot. When
they met at the lot located along hwy. 101 at around 10:20AM, Jefferson was informed that
West had not contacted authorities and urged him to do so, stating that she would not do so
herself at that time. West then informed her that he wished to inform the grandparents of
Davidson personally and that they lived in San Clemente, CA, and that he would drive
Davidson’s truck to San Clemente for that purpose. West also stated that he would leave
Davidson’s truck at the grandparents’ location and meet Jefferson the next morning, 30 October,
at 11:30AM in the parking lot of a Costco store in Oxnard, CA, to which Jefferson agreed.
Though not made clear was how West planned on travelling from San Clemente to Oxnard. After
this meeting both parties parted ways and Jefferson stated that she did not expect to see west
until the following morning.
At approximately 5:00PM on 29 October, West appeared at Jefferson’s home in Los
Osos,CA, driving Davidson’s truck. Noticing that Jefferson was surprised to see him, informed
her that he was indeed leaving for San Clemente momentarily, however, the issue of notification
of the authorities at this meeting was not discussed. After Wests departure, Jefferson received a
phone call during the evening of the 29th from a Carl Plane who was trying to locate his friend
Thomas Davidson. Jefferson informed him that Davidson and West had just left her house and
that she did not know their destination. During the evening of the 29th, West drove Davidson’s
truck to Los Angeles and abandoned it in an area near the Los Angeles Int’l Airport and then
obtained a hotel room under an assumed name presumably within the same vicinity.
On 30 October, West met Jefferson as planned in Oxnard after taking a taxi from Los
Angeles to that location. Jefferson stated that West told her that he had neither contacted nor

3. delivered the truck to the grandparents in San Clemente, rather that he had abandoned it
somewhere close to the airport in Los Angeles. It is unclear if Jefferson urged West to contact
authorities at this time. The two then drove back to the Avila Beach house where Davidson’s
body was still concealed. West entered the home to retrieve the weapon, A .45 Cal Glock
handgun owned by West, while Jefferson waited outside. After retrieving the weapon and his
own vehicle, West followed Jefferson to her home in Los Osos. During the afternoon of 30
October, Jefferson held a small family gathering and at approximately 5:00PM, Jefferson and
West met with a local attorney and at approximately 6:00PM, met with local police and made
formal notification of the shooting. Jefferson and West both admit to not contacting any member
of Davidson’s family regarding their relatives’ demise between 29 and 30 October.
West was later tried and acquitted for manslaughter, and lost a civil wrongful death suit
brought by Walter and Theresa. Though the Davidsons are unlikely to collect on damages
awarded in that suit due to West’s lack of assets and unemployment as well as he is seeking
bankruptcy protection.
Injuries and Suffrages
In addition to the normal grief a parent suffers upon the loss of a child, the Davidsons
also experienced the trauma of not being able to view the body caused by the extreme level of
decomposition due to the lack of care and delay in reporting of the shooting, thereby denying
them the opportunity to properly express their good-byes at the funeral. Both Davidsons are
presently under professional medical care for depression and insomnia, and both receive
prescribed medication for these conditions. Both complain of difficulty concentrating and a fear

4. of being alone. Theresa also suffers from frequent bouts of nausea and vomiting and as a result
has had to leave her employment resulting in a loss of income to the household.
Issues
NIED; Whether or not Betty Jefferson owed a duty to the Davidsons, If any duty was
owed what Breach of duty occurred and why, What if any Injuries were suffered by the
Davidsons, What was the Actual cause(s) of distress and What was the Proximate cause(s) of
distress.
IIED; Whether or not Betty Jefferson committed any acts that may be construed as
Outrageous conduct, Whether or not there was specific intent on the part of Jefferson to inflict
injury upon the Davidsons, What Injuries did the Davidsons suffer, What was the Actual
cause(s) and, What was the Proximate cause(s)
NIED; As to a duty being held, Betty Jefferson as Homeowner and Mother had a duty of care
and disclosure.
As to whom that duty is owed it is clear that it is owed not only to the Davidsons but to all close
relatives and statutory law.
As to Injuries, the Davidsons have suffered great pain, both physical and mental, as well as
losses of livelihood and sustenance.
The Actual cause(s) of said distress being the statutory violations committed by Betty Jefferson.
The Proximate cause(s) of said distress being the egregious ethical acts committed by Jefferson.

5. IIED; As to Outrageous conduct, the unethical and deceitful acts committed by Jefferson should
be sufficient.
As to Intent, there is an indication enforced by Jefferson’s acts of deceit and reckless disregard.
As to Injuries, the Davidsons have suffered great pain, both physical and mental, as well as
losses of livelihood and sustenance.
The Actual cause(s) of said distress being the statutory violations committed by Betty Jefferson.
The Proximate cause(s) of said distress being the egregious ethical acts committed by Jefferson.
Discussion and Analysis
NIED
Basis for Duty
The duty that Betty Jefferson owed may be found firstly under Cal. Civ. §1714(a) which
states, “Everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an
injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of
his or her property or person, except so far as the latter has, willfully or by want of ordinary
care, brought the injury upon himself or herself”. Whereas Jefferson’s actions of deceit in
communicating with Carl Pane in their phone conversation of 29 October to her complicity in the
aiding of her son after the shooting creating accomplice liability through nondisclosure as
established in Cal. Health & Safety §102850(f)which states, “A physician and surgeon, physician
assistant, funeral director, or other person shall immediately notify the coroner when he or she
has knowledge of a death that occurred or has charge of a body in which death occurred Under
circumstances as to afford a reasonable ground to suspect that the death was caused by the

6. criminal act of another”. The duty owed by Jefferson is also identified in Cal. Evid. §669(a)(1)
in that The failure of a person to exercise due care is presumed if he violated a statute, ordinance,
or regulation of a public entity, which Jefferson did in fact through her deceit and complicity
commit. As shown in (Rowland v. Christian, (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 108, 70 Cal. Rptr. 97, 443 P. 2d
561, infra.)Jefferson, as a mother herself, should have foreseen the emotional consequences of
her actions and the severity of those consequences that would likely follow the disclosure of the
shooting. The fact that she used deceit in her phone call with Plane is evidence enough to show
her intent to hide the truth and that her moral obligations to not only the Davidsons but to Plane
would have dictated full disclosure upon knowledge of shooting, Just as Christian had a duty to
inform Rowland that the faucet was defective.
To Whom Duty is Owed
As Jefferson clearly held a duty, to whom is now the concern, certainly a duty to society
to properly and expediently notify the proper authorities of the shooting exists under Cal. Health
& Safety §102850(f), however, Jefferson also had a duty to the parents of the deceased as
outlined under Cal. Health & Safety §7100(a)(4) which states, “The right to control the
disposition of the remains of a deceased person, the location and conditions of interment, and
arrangements for funeral goods and services to be provided, unless other directions have been
given by the decedent pursuant to Section 7100.1, vests in, and the duty of disposition and the
liability for the reasonable cost of disposition of the remains devolves upon, the surviving
competent parent or parents of the decedent. If one of the surviving competent parents is absent,
the remaining competent parent shall be vested with the rights and duties of this section after
reasonable efforts have been unsuccessful in locating the absent surviving competent parent”.
Also a duty to the Davidsons was clearly owed via Cal. Evid. §669(a)(4) which states, “The

7. failure of a person to exercise due care is presumed if The person suffering the death or the
injury to his person or property was one of the class of persons for whose protection the statute,
ordinance, or regulation was adopted”. However, it should be noted that the class of litigants
bearing standing being interpreted as quite broad in scope should not be reflected herein as the
parents as well as the grandparents of the victim were quite possibly the only parties who showed
outward signs of physical and emotional distress and should therefore be limited to such as
provided by the opinions set forth in Moradi v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Companies, (1988) 46
Cal. 3d 287 infra., where the field of possible parties was held to be smaller and not allow third
parties such as insurance companies be held liable for non-action, and Christensen v. Superior
Court, (1991) 54 Cal.3d 868 infra., which limited the parties to those close family members,
parties covered under Cal. Health& Safety §7100 and those with an intimate knowledge of the
act.
Breach of Duty
Jefferson clearly breached the duty here as identified in Cal. Evid. §669(a)(1)supra., and
as defined under Cal. Gov’t. §27491.1 infra., which states, “In all cases in which a person has
died under circumstances that afford a reasonable ground to suspect that the person's death has
been occasioned by the act of another by criminal means, the coroner, upon determining that
those reasonable grounds exist, shall immediately notify the law enforcement agency having
jurisdiction over the criminal investigation”. Also, breaches to Cal. Health & Safety §102850(f)
supra.
Injury to Plaintiff
In addition to the normal grief a parent suffers upon the loss of a child, the Davidsons
also experienced the trauma of not being able to view the body caused by the extreme level of

8. decomposition due to the lack of care and delay in reporting of the shooting, thereby denying
them the opportunity to properly express their good-byes at the funeral. Both Davidsons are
presently under professional medical care for depression and insomnia, and both receive
prescribed medication for these conditions. Both complain of difficulty concentrating and a fear
of being alone. Theresa also suffers from frequent bouts of nausea and vomiting and as a result
has had to leave her employment resulting in a loss of income to the household. These injuries
may be attributable to Dillon v. Legg, (1968) 68 Cal. 2d 728 infra., where the court held that
while plaintiff was not exposed to physical harm, the “zone of danger” should be extended to
encompass those exposed to emotional injury as well.
Actual Cause
As for the case for NIED, actual cause can be readily attributable to Jefferson’s
violation(s) of Cal. Evid. §669 and as evidenced in Christensen v. Superior Court supra., in that
Jefferson’s actions led to the extensive decomposition of decedents body thereby causing undue
emotional grief upon Plaintiffs due to not being able to view the body prior to burial.
Proximate Cause
In addition to the Statute violations listed above to also include Cal. Health & Safety
§7100, and specifically Cal. Evid. §669, the foreseeability of the resultant distress should be
evident as was the emotional distress caused by the mishandling of remains in Christensen v.
Superior Court supra., the delay in reporting the shooting in a timely manner which would be
expected of any reasonably acting individual and Jefferson herself being a mother further
enhances the foreseeability of the distress.
IIED
Outrageous Conduct

9. As to whether or not Betty Jefferson committed acts of outrageous conduct we shall
begin with her being deceitful when on the phone with Carl Plane, which in and of itself may
not be entirely egregious as Plane was a third party. However, her failure to notify authorities in
a timely manner and her complicity in aiding her son delay his apprehension by transporting
West from Oxnard to Avila Beach and then giving shelter to him in Los Osos so as to meet with
other family members in the time before notifying the police is surely outrageous under any
application of the reasonable person standard. The fact that her complicities and reckless
disregard for statutory authority as well as the best interests of the parents and family of
decedent, enabled the delay which caused the extreme decomposition of the decedent’s body
should also be held as outrageous conduct.
Intent
In as much as Jefferson created accomplice liability under complicity as defined in Cal.
Penal §32, which states, “Every person who, after a felony has been committed, harbors,
conceals or aids a principal in such felony, with the intent that said principal may avoid or
escape from arrest, trial, conviction or punishment, having knowledge that said principal has
committed such felony or has been charged with such felony or convicted thereof, is an
accessory to such felony”, and further defined in CALCRIM No. 440 Aiding and Abetting, along
with her violation of Cal. Evid. §668, which states, “An unlawful intent is presumed from the
doing of an unlawful act. This presumption is inapplicable in a criminal action to establish the
specific intent of the defendant where specific intent is an element of the crime charged”, which
directly points to her earlier stated violations of statute which she willingly performed on behalf
of her son whom she knew to have committed a criminal act, would support intent. As to
certainty, as a mother and alleged reasonable person, Jefferson must have had a substantial

10. knowledge and foreseeability that severe distress would be caused to the Davidsons as a result of
her acts, just as the mortuary named in Christensen v. Superior Court supra., should have had
aforethought as to the distress caused to the family members of the decedents whose remains
were entrusted to them should disclosure of their actions be made available to those family
members. The reckless disregard that Jefferson showed in her willing, and deceitful conduct in
aiding her son in his crime, and the reckless disregard for the feelings of the family of the
decedent, despite her own foreseeability of the duress that would likely follow. Also as to intent
we should consider Cal. Evid. §665, which states, “A person is presumed to intend the ordinary
consequences of his voluntary act. This presumption is inapplicable in a criminal action to
establish the specific intent of the defendant where specific intent is an element of the crime
charged”, as this points to Jefferson’s culpability by her own reckless disregard and willing
abetment. The outrageous act’s herein notably to the phone Call to Plane in which Jefferson
falsely denied Davidsons whereabouts so as to create a cushion of protection for herself and her
son so that they may continue their nefarious scheme to elude authorities as long as possible, and
as the off duty police officer in Cervantes v. J.C.Penney CO., (1979) 24 Cal. 3d 579 infra., was
found to have made outrageous acts that exceeded all bounds of reasonability in his arrest of
Cervantes, that Betty Jefferson so likewise by aiding and abetting her son whom she knew to
have committed a crime committed herself inexcusable and outrageous acts.
Injury to Plaintiff
Jefferson’s egregious actions as noted before have led to severe mental distress that has
led to severe depression and insomnia as well as physical maladies to include recurring nausea,
and vomiting which has led to Theresa’s need to leave gainful employment thereby rendering a
loss of income and stability not otherwise foreseen save for Jefferson’s actions.

11. Actual Cause
As for the case for IIED, actual cause can be readily attributable to Jefferson’s
violation(s) of Cal. Evid. §669 and as evidenced in Christensen v. Superior Court supra., in that
Jefferson’s actions led to the extensive decomposition of decedents body thereby causing undue
emotional grief upon Plaintiffs due to not being able to view the body prior to burial due to
mishandling of the remains of the decedent. As well as her complicity under Cal. Evid. §665 in
her actions to abet her son in an effort to delay his capture and her failure to act as defined under
Cal. Evid. §669(a)(1) and Cal. Gov’t. §27491.1.
Proximate Cause
In addition to the Statute violations listed above to also include Cal. Health & Safety §7100, and
similarly to the events of Rowland v. Christian supra., the foreseeability of the resultant distress
should be evident as was the emotional distress caused by the mishandling of remains in
Christensen v. Superior Court supra., the delay in reporting the shooting in a timely manner
which would be expected of any reasonably acting individual and Jefferson herself being a
mother further enhances the foreseeability of the distress and was made more egregious due to
her willing act of abetment to her son.
Conclusions
As to the possibility of an action for NIED, it has been established that Jefferson had a
duty of care and reporting and that duty was owed to the Davidsons and society in general as
guided by statutory law, that her actions did in fact lead to a breach of that duty which in turn
caused the emotional and physical distress suffered by the Davidsons, and that the statutory
violations established a direct and actual cause and that the foreseeability of the distress created
the proximate cause of the Davidson’s distress.

12. As to IIED, while the outrageous actions of Jefferson are clearly shown by her deceit and
willing and reckless disregard for the laws of the State of California as set forth in statutes and
case law show, it is also her willing and reckless disregard for those statutes and with the
aforethought of being a mother herself knowing that her actions would certainly lead to distress
for decedents family still willingly abetted her son in his crime which creates her own culpability
and shows direct intent. This intent did so lead to the duress and financial losses that the
Davidsons have endured through no action of their own but for the actions of Jefferson. The
illegal acts committed by Jefferson being directly and actually being the cause for said distress
and that the willing disregard shown by Jefferson proximately causing the distress.
Recommendations and Contemplated Action
As to the action for NIED, it is quite clear that Jefferson has breached her duties to the
Davidsons and through her negligence has acted in a way so as to create severe distress and
financial losses for the Davidsons and therefore I believe that upon reaching a favorable decision
at trial the Davidsons should be able to recover for their loss of income as well as any and all
medical costs born from their distress.
As to an action for IIED, though it is quite clear that Jefferson’s statutory violations
committed by her willingly and with reckless disregard for said statutes and her acts of abetment
in aiding her son to elude capture and the severe decomposition of the decedent’s body due to
those acts are in any reasonable person consideration outrageous. As to intent there may be some
doubt, however I believe that Jefferson, as a mother herself, did knowingly and vicariously
commit these acts with full expectation as to the distress it would create for decedent’s family
and that those actions would create severe mental distress that the Davidsons have suffered as a
result of those actions. Her reckless disregard for statutory law is an actual cause for this action

13. as well as the proximate cause being that but for the actions of Betty Jefferson’s complicity and
egregious behavior the Davidsons might never have had these injuries. I would expect that if this
action were to be decided by trial that the Davidsons would prevail and be able to recover for
their loss of income and any and all medical costs created by Jefferson’s acts.