Kloepfel v. Bokor

66 P.3d 630 · Washington Supreme Court · 2003

Facts

Mr. Bokor and Ms. Kloepfel began a relationship in 1986, moved in together in 1994, and separated in July 1997. Kloepfel sought and obtained a restraining order against Bokor in August 1997, ordering him to stay away and not contact her. Bokor repeatedly ignored this and subsequent court orders, leading to convictions for harassment, domestic violence, and felony stalking. He made 640 calls to her home, 100 to her work, and threatened to kill her and a man she was dating. Bokor's conduct severely disrupted Kloepfel's life, causing nervousness, sleeplessness, hyper-vigilance, and stomach upset, though she did not seek professional medical or counseling care.

Procedural history

Kloepfel sued Bokor for intentional infliction of emotional distress and prevailed at a bench trial, receiving a $60,000 judgment. Bokor appealed to Division Three of the Court of Appeals, arguing, among other things, that Kloepfel failed to prove objective medical evidence of her distress. The Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision. Bokor then petitioned the Supreme Court of Washington.

Issue

Does the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (outrage) require proof of severe emotional distress by objective symptomatology and a medical diagnosis?

Holding

No, the court held that the objective symptomatology requirement, which applies to negligent infliction of emotional distress, is not a requirement for proof of intentional infliction of emotional distress or outrage.

Rule

The tort of outrage requires proof of three elements: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct, (2) intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, and (3) actual result to plaintiff of severe emotional distress. The court distinguished intentional torts from negligent ones, noting that objective symptomatology is a requirement for negligent infliction of emotional distress due to policy concerns about limiting liability for mere negligence. However, for intentional torts, the greater culpability of the defendant means that the elements of outrage, particularly the requirement of extreme and outrageous conduct, sufficiently limit recovery, and severe emotional distress can be presumed from such conduct without requiring objective symptomatology or bodily harm.

Read the full opinion on CourtListener

Case brief last reviewed 2026-10-04. Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.