State Rubbish Collectors Ass'n v. Siliznoff

Supreme Court of California · 1952 · Torts

TortsIntentional infliction of emotional distressDuressExemplary damagesemotional distressserious threatsmental sufferingtechnical assault not required

Facts

After Siliznoff obtained the Acme Brewing rubbish account through solicitation, the plaintiff association, acting through its president, inspector Andikian, and board members, demanded that he either surrender the account or pay a prior collector for it and join the association. Siliznoff testified that he was threatened with being beaten up, having his truck tires cut or truck burned, and being put out of business if he did not appear at the board meeting and make an agreement. Frightened by these threats, he agreed to pay $1,850, join the association, and signed promissory notes, none of which he paid. He also testified that the fright made him ill, caused vomiting, and kept him from work for several days.

Issue

Whether a plaintiff states a tort claim when, without privilege, a defendant intentionally subjects another to severe emotional distress through serious threats to physical safety, even though the threats do not amount to a technical assault. Also, whether the notes were supported by consideration when defendant had independently obtained the customer account through lawful competition.

Rule

One who, without privilege, intentionally causes severe emotional distress to another is liable for that emotional distress and for any bodily harm resulting from it. A cause of action exists when one intentionally subjects another to the mental suffering incident to serious threats to physical well-being, whether or not the threats are made under circumstances constituting a technical assault.

🔒

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 San Diego, Mateo Ruiz opened a small delivery service and won a restaurant account through ordinary solicitation. Leaders of a fictional trade guild told Mateo that if he did not surrender the account by the next evening, they would have him beaten and smash his van; Mateo became terrified, could not sleep, and missed several days of work, but no one ever approached him physically.

If Mateo sues for the emotional harm, what is the strongest argument for recovery?

Explanation. The majority recognized liability when, without privilege, a defendant intentionally subjects another to the mental suffering incident to serious threats to physical well-being, whether or not the threats constitute a technical assault. Physical contact is unnecessary, and the lack of an assault in the technical sense does not defeat the claim. (Derived from State Rubbish Collectors Ass'n v. Siliznoff (1952).)