Cullison v. Medley
570 N.E. 2d 27 · 1991
Facts
Cullison invited 16-year-old Sandy Medley to his mobile home after meeting her in a grocery store parking lot. A few hours later, Sandy, her parents Ernest and Doris, her brother Ron, and brother-in-law Terry Simmons confronted Cullison in his darkened living room. Ernest, on crutches, had a holstered revolver and repeatedly grabbed at it while threatening Cullison to leave Sandy alone. Sandy called Cullison a "pervert," and Doris berated him with her hand in her pocket, making him fear she also had a gun. Cullison feared he would be shot and suffered chest pains as the Medleys left. Later, Ernest, armed, menacingly glared at Cullison in a restaurant. Cullison sought psychological counseling and therapy, suffering from nervousness, depression, sleeplessness, and impotency, which impacted his construction business.
Procedural history
The trial court entered summary judgment against Cullison and in favor of the Medleys. The Court of Appeals affirmed the entry of summary judgment. Cullison then petitioned this Court to accept transfer, which was granted, leading to this review.
Issue
Whether the "impact rule" prohibits Cullison from recovering for emotional distress under legal theories of trespass, assault, invasion of privacy, or intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Holding
The court reversed the summary judgment for trespass and assault, finding the "impact rule" does not apply to these torts. It affirmed summary judgment for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Rule
The "impact rule," which requires physical injury for recovery of mental anguish damages, is no longer valid for tortious trespass. When an intentional trespass foreseeably causes emotional disturbance, damages for emotional injury are recoverable. Assault is the intent to cause apprehension of harmful contact, and damages for mental trauma and distress are recoverable if a reasonable person would experience such apprehension. Invasion of privacy by intrusion involves invading physical solitude or seclusion, but cannot be simultaneously maintained with trespass for the same events. Intentional infliction of emotional distress requires extreme and outrageous conduct intended to cause severe emotional distress.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.