DocketNumber: No. CV 92-0335703
Citation Numbers: 1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 6525-P
Judges: GORDON, J.
Filed Date: 7/15/1993
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The preliminary determination of whether, as a matter of law, sufficient facts have been pleaded to support an intentional infliction of emotional distress action, is one for the court. Restatement (Second) Torts 46, comment h. Connecticut Practice Book 108 requires fact-based pleading. Thus, actions which are "extreme and outrageous" must be contained in the complaint. In Whelan v. Whelan,
. . . For the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress to be CT Page 6525-R established, . . . the plaintiff must allege and prove conduct considerably more egregious than that experienced in the rough and tumble of everyday life. . .
* * *
Liability exists only "for conduct exceeding all bounds usually tolerated by decent society, of a nature which is especially calculated to cause, and does cause mental distress of a very serious kind." Id., 60. "[A] line can be drawn between the slight hurts which are the price of a complex society and the severe mental disturbances inflicted by intentional actions wholly lacking in social utility." Knierim v. Izzo,
22 Ill.2d 73 ,85 ,174 N.E.2d 157 (1961). "Liability has been found only where the conduct has been so outrageous in CT Page 6525-S character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community." 1 Restatement (Second) Torts 46, p. 73, comment (d). Whelan, supra at 524.
The determination of whether defendant Rooney's conduct as pleaded could be found to be "so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and . . . be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community" is a quantum of law, and appropriately addressed in a motion to strike. Restatement (Second) Torts 46, comment. Mellaly v. Eastman Kodak Co.,
Some courts called upon to determine whether there is a reason to let a jury decide whether alleged conduct could be CT Page 6525-T found to meet "outrageous" standard have focused on objective criteria such as whether the defendant was in a position of authority over the plaintiff. Mellaly v. Eastman Kodak Co.,
Some cases have focused on whether the defendant knew of some special susceptibility to emotional abuse on the part of the plaintiff; Mellaly, (supra); Boyle v. Wenk,
Some cases have looked to whether there is a lengthy or continuous pattern of harassment conduct over time. See, e.g., Kiseskey v. Carpenters Trust,
The plaintiffs have not alleged sufficient facts to sustain a complaint for intentional infliction of emotional distress as a matter of law.
The motion to strike is granted.
BY THE COURT:
Gordon, J.
Erickson v. Christenson , 99 Or. App. 104 ( 1989 )
Lazor v. Milne , 346 Pa. Super. 177 ( 1985 )
Knierim v. Izzo , 22 Ill. 2d 73 ( 1961 )
Boyle v. Wenk , 378 Mass. 592 ( 1979 )
Whelan v. Whelan , 41 Conn. Super. Ct. 519 ( 1991 )
Kiseskey v. Carpenters' Trust for Southern California , 192 Cal. Rptr. 492 ( 1983 )
Mellaly v. Eastman Kodak Co. , 42 Conn. Super. Ct. 17 ( 1991 )