Brower v. Ackerley
943 P.2d 1141 · Court of Appeals of Washington · 1997
Facts
Jordan Brower, an activist, received a series of anonymous, threatening telephone calls from Christopher and Theodore Ackerley after he reported their company's illegal billboards. The calls escalated to explicit threats of physical harm, causing Brower significant emotional distress. The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing Brower's claims for civil assault, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and the tort of outrage.
Issue
Did the trial court err in dismissing Brower's civil assault claim because the threatened harm was not sufficiently imminent? Did the trial court err in dismissing Brower's negligent infliction of emotional distress claim due to a lack of objective symptomatology? Did the trial court err in dismissing Brower's tort of outrage claim by finding his alleged emotional distress was not severe enough to go to a jury?
Holding
The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the civil assault claim, finding the threats were not of imminent harm. It also affirmed the dismissal of the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim due to the absence of objective symptomatology. However, the court reversed the dismissal of the tort of outrage claim, concluding that a jury could find Brower's emotional distress to be severe given the extreme nature of the conduct.
Rule
Civil assault requires apprehension of *imminent* physical violence, and words alone are insufficient without circumstances indicating immediate harm. Negligent infliction of emotional distress requires the distress to be manifested by 'objective symptomatology.' The tort of outrage requires extreme and outrageous conduct, intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, and actual severe emotional distress, with the extremity of the conduct serving as important evidence of severity.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.