Dickens v. Puryear

Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1981 · Torts

TortsIIEDassaultbatterythreatening conductIIEDintentional infliction of mental distressassault

Facts

Defendants lured plaintiff to a rural area where defendant Earl Puryear pointed a pistol at him, summoned masked men who beat him, handcuffed him to farm machinery, and discussed within plaintiff's hearing whether he should be killed or castrated. After the beatings, Earl Puryear told plaintiff to go home, pull his telephone off the wall, pack his clothes, and leave North Carolina or he would be killed. Plaintiff sued alleging severe and permanent mental and emotional distress, including fear, inability to sleep, chronic diarrhea, gum disorder, impaired work performance, and lost income. Ann Puryear was present at plaintiff's arrival, said she did not want to see him, and left before the beatings and threat concluded.

Issue

Whether defendants could raise the statute of limitations by summary judgment before filing an answer, and whether plaintiff's claim was entirely barred by the one-year statute governing assault and battery or could proceed as a claim for intentional infliction of mental distress under the three-year statute. Also, whether the evidentiary showing was sufficient to proceed against Ann Puryear on a conspiracy theory.

Rule

A party whose responsive pleading is not yet due may raise an affirmative defense by motion for summary judgment. Assault requires conduct creating apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact, while a mere threat of future harm is not assault. The tort of intentional infliction of mental distress consists of (1) extreme and outrageous conduct, (2) intended to cause and actually causing, (3) severe emotional distress; the tort may also exist where defendant acts with reckless indifference to the likelihood of causing such distress. Physical injury beyond emotional distress or damage to the nervous system, and foreseeability, are not elements of this tort. Claims for assault and battery are governed by the one-year statute, while intentional infliction of mental distress is governed by the three-year statute.

🔒

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 Asheville, Nolan Price cornered Devin Cole in a parking lot, shook a metal pipe at him, and said, "If you show up at the brewery next month, I'll break your legs." Devin immediately drove away and, over the next year, developed severe insomnia and panic attacks. He sued Nolan two years after the incident, seeking damages for severe emotional distress.

Which is the strongest analysis of Devin's claim?

Explanation. A threat of future harm is not an assault, because assault requires apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact. Under the majority opinion, extreme and outrageous conduct intended to cause, or done with reckless indifference to causing, severe emotional distress may support intentional infliction of mental distress, which is governed by the three-year statute. Separate physical injury and foreseeability are not elements of that tort.