In Litwin v. Whirlpool Corp., 91 A.3d 1214 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2014) (No. A-0186-13T1), the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court reviewed a summary judgment entered for the defendant dishwashing machine manufacturer in a case alleging negligent infliction of emotional distress by a father whose son was burned severely in a house fire allegedly caused by a defect in the dishwashing machine.  Although the plaintiff had been in the house with his son at the time of the fire, they were separated and the father did not see the son actually suffer the burns; he did see his son being brought out of the house by the firemen.  The trial court had ruled that the father could not satisfy the element of his claim that required observing the injuries being suffered.  The Appellate Division reversed, holding that the father’s presence with the son in the house when the fire started and his observation of the son being brought out of the house suffering from the burns was sufficient to present a question of fact for the jury on the observation element of the claim.