Dickens v. Puryear, 302 N.C. 437

Summary

The North Carolina Supreme Court considered whether defendants could raise the statute of limitations through motions for summary judgment filed before answering. The court held that the defense was properly raised, but concluded that the plaintiff's allegations and factual showing could support a claim for intentional infliction of mental distress governed by a three-year limitations period rather than an assault-and-battery claim subject to a one-year period. Summary judgment was nevertheless affirmed as to the female defendant because the plaintiff had not made a sufficient showing against her.

Holdings

1. A defending party whose responsive pleading is not yet due may raise an affirmative defense, including the statute of limitations, by motion for summary judgment before filing an answer.
2. Failure to expressly state the statute-of-limitations defense in a summary-judgment motion does not bar consideration of that defense when the opposing party was not surprised and had a full opportunity to present argument and evidence on it.
3. A claim for intentional infliction of mental distress is governed by North Carolina's three-year statute of limitations for other injuries to the person or rights of another, rather than the one-year statute applicable to assault and battery.
4. The tort of intentional infliction of mental distress consists of extreme and outrageous conduct that is intended to cause and does cause severe emotional distress; liability may also arise from reckless indifference to the likelihood of causing such distress. Physical injury and foreseeability are not additional elements of the tort.
5. The forecast of evidence was sufficient to indicate that Dickens might prove intentional infliction of mental distress against Earl Puryear; the future conditional threat of death was not an assault because it was not a threat of imminent harm, and summary judgment based on the one-year assault-and-battery limitations period was therefore improper.
6. Summary judgment for Ann Puryear was proper because the evidence showed no more than her presence at the scene and departure before the assaults and future threat, which was insufficient to create more than suspicion or conjecture of an agreement to intentionally inflict mental distress.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defendants could raise the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense in motions for summary judgment filed before their answers were due or filed.
2. Whether the factual forecast established as a matter of law that Dickens's claim was only for assault and battery, subject to the one-year statute of limitations, rather than intentional infliction of mental distress, subject to the three-year statute of limitations.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to allow Dickens to proceed against Earl Puryear on a claim for intentional infliction of mental distress.
4. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a civil-conspiracy claim against Ann Puryear.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded