Cullison v. Medley

Supreme Court of Indiana · 1991 · Torts

570 N.E.2d 27

Updated July 9, 2026

tortsemotional distresstrespassassaultinvasion of privacyintentional infliction of emotional distressimpact ruleintrusion

Facts

Cullison testified that after he briefly spoke with Sandy Medley earlier in the day, someone knocked at his trailer while he was in bed. After he went to dress and returned, he found Sandy, her father Ernest, her mother Doris, her brother Ron, and her brother-in-law Terry Simmons inside his darkened trailer without invitation. Ernest, who had a revolver holstered to his thigh, repeatedly grabbed toward and shook the gun while threatening Cullison, causing Cullison to fear he was about to be shot, and Cullison later sought extensive psychological and psychiatric treatment for resulting emotional problems. He also described later encounters in which Ernest glared at him while armed in a restaurant.

Issue

Whether Indiana's impact rule barred Cullison from recovering emotional-distress damages on his claims for trespass, assault, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Also, whether the evidence created jury questions on those claims sufficient to defeat summary judgment.

Rule

The impact rule does not prohibit recovery for emotional distress sustained in the course of a tortious trespass when one intentionally invades another's premises in a way that would reasonably foreseeably provoke emotional disturbance or trauma. Assault is complete when one acts intending to cause harmful or offensive contact or imminent apprehension of such contact, and the protected interest is freedom from apprehension of a battery; the apprehension must be one a reasonable person would normally experience. Indiana recognizes intentional infliction of emotional distress where extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress, but liability requires intent to harm emotionally under the circumstances presented.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Fort Wayne, Nina Barrett answered a late-night knock while wearing pajamas. She told the person outside to wait while she changed, but when she returned to the living room she found three members of the Doyle family already inside her duplex, accusing her of spreading rumors about their son; none touched her, but she later sought counseling for panic attacks.

If Nina sues for trespass and seeks damages only for emotional distress, which is the best result?

Explanation. The majority held that the impact rule does not bar recovery for emotional distress sustained in the course of a tortious trespass. When a person intentionally invades another's premises in a way that would reasonably foreseeably provoke emotional disturbance or trauma to the rightful occupier, the occupier may recover for that emotional injury even without physical impact.