Summary
The Washington Supreme Court held that objective symptomatology and a medical diagnosis are not required to prove severe emotional distress in an intentional infliction of emotional distress, or outrage, claim. The court distinguished the requirements applicable to negligent infliction of emotional distress and affirmed the $60,000 judgment awarded to Judy Kloepfel for Joseph Bokor’s repeated harassment and violations of no-contact orders.
Holdings
- Objective symptomatology is not required to establish intentional infliction of emotional distress or outrage.
- Although objective symptomatology is unnecessary, a plaintiff must still prove severe emotional distress; extreme and outrageous conduct may itself provide evidence from which severe emotional distress can be found.
Questions Presented
- Whether a plaintiff asserting intentional infliction of emotional distress, also called the tort of outrage, must prove severe emotional distress through objective symptomatology.
- Whether a medical diagnosis or medical evidence is required to establish severe emotional distress in an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (23)
- State v. Johnson, 128 Wn.2d 431, 443, 909 P.2d 293 (1996)(followed)
- Reid v. Pierce County, 136 Wn.2d 195, 201-02, 961 P.2d 333 (1998)(followed)
- Dicomes v. State, 113 Wn.2d 612, 630, 782 P.2d 1002 (1989)(followed)
- Rice v. Janovich, 109 Wn.2d 48, 61, 742 P.2d 1230 (1987)(followed)
- Grimsby v. Samson, 85 Wn.2d 52, 59-60, 530 P.2d 291 (1975)(followed)
- Haubry v. Snow, 106 Wn. App. 666, 680-81, 31 P.3d 1186 (2001)(disapproved)
- Benoy v. Simons, 66 Wn. App. 56, 63, 831 P.2d 167 (1992)(disapproved)
- Lawson v. Boeing Co., 58 Wn. App. 261, 270, 792 P.2d 545 (1990)(followed)
- Spurrell v. Block, 40 Wn. App. 854, 862-63, 701 P.2d 529 (1985)(followed)
- Berger v. Sonneland, 144 Wn.2d 91, 113, 26 P.3d 257 (2001)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 23.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…