Taylor v. Vallelunga

California Court of Appeal · 1959 · Torts

TortsIIEDbystanderknowledge of presenceoutrageous conductIIEDemotional distressbystander plaintiff

Facts

The complaint's first count alleged that defendants struck and beat Clifford Gerlach, causing him bodily injury. In the second count, Gail E. Taylor alleged that she was Gerlach's daughter, was present and witnessed the beating of her father, and suffered severe fright and emotional distress as a result. The second count did not allege any physical injury or disability resulting from her distress. It also did not allege that defendants knew she was present, that they beat her father for the purpose of causing her distress, or that they knew severe emotional distress to her was substantially certain to result.

Issue

Does a complaint state a cause of action for emotional distress by a plaintiff who witnessed defendants beat her father when the complaint alleges no physical injury and does not allege that defendants knew of her presence, intended to cause her distress, or knew such distress was substantially certain to result?

Rule

A cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress without accompanying physical injury is established only when the defendant, without privilege, intentionally causes severe emotional distress. Intent exists when the act is done for the purpose of causing the distress or with knowledge that severe emotional distress is substantially certain to be produced by the conduct. Where the plaintiff is a witness to conduct directed at another, the complaint must allege facts showing that the defendant had the required intent toward that plaintiff, including knowledge of the plaintiff's presence when necessary to show substantial certainty.

🔒

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 Sacramento, Nolan Price angrily smashed Leo Mendez's hand with a metal bar during a warehouse dispute. Leo's sister, Marisol Mendez, watched from an upstairs catwalk hidden behind stacked boxes, and Nolan had no idea she was there; Marisol alleges severe emotional distress but no bodily injury.

If Nolan files a demurrer to Marisol's complaint for intentional infliction of emotional distress, how should the court rule under the majority opinion's doctrine?

Explanation. A complaint for severe emotional distress without bodily injury is sufficient only if the defendant intentionally caused that distress. Intent means either a purpose to cause the plaintiff's distress or knowledge that severe emotional distress to that plaintiff was substantially certain. For a witness to conduct aimed at another, allegations that the defendant knew of the plaintiff's presence may be necessary to show that intent. Here Marisol alleged only that she witnessed the attack; she did not allege bodily injury or facts showing Nolan knew she was present, acted to distress her, or knew her distress was substantially certain.