Alsteen v. Gehl
124 N.W.2d 312, 21 Wis.2d 349, 1963 Wisc. LEXIS 372 (1963)
Rule of Law:
A person is liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress if they, by extreme and outrageous conduct, intentionally cause another person to suffer a severe and disabling emotional response, even in the absence of physical harm.
Facts:
- Mrs. Alsteen entered into a contract with Gehl, a contractor, for home re-siding and other improvements.
- During the performance of the contract, disputes arose between Alsteen and Gehl.
- Gehl engaged in a course of conduct and interpersonal contacts with Alsteen.
- Alsteen alleged that Gehl's conduct caused her to suffer severe psychological harm and a depressive reaction.
Procedural Posture:
- Mrs. Alsteen sued Gehl in a Wisconsin trial court.
- A jury found Gehl's conduct to be 'unreasonable.'
- Despite the jury's finding, the trial court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant, Gehl.
- Alsteen, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Wisconsin recognize a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress where a defendant intentionally causes severe emotional harm through extreme and outrageous conduct, even without accompanying physical injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Wilkie, J.
Yes. A person may recover damages for severe emotional distress alone when it results from another's extreme and outrageous conduct that was undertaken for the purpose of inflicting psychological harm. The court explicitly recognizes the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress, departing from past reluctance to compensate for emotional harm without physical injury. It reasoned that advances in psychology and psychiatry now allow for reliable evaluation of such claims. The court adopted a modified version of the Restatement's rule, crucially removing 'reckless' conduct as a basis for liability to align with Wisconsin's abandonment of gross negligence. However, applying this new rule to the present case, the court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Gehl's conduct, while 'unreasonable,' did not rise to the level of 'extreme and outrageous' required for liability. The court also declined to create a duty for contractors to avoid negligently causing emotional distress, reasoning that such a standard would lead to excessive litigation and stifle necessary 'freedom to ventilate' feelings.
Analysis:
This landmark decision formally establishes the tort of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) in Wisconsin, providing a remedy for severe emotional harm intentionally caused by egregious behavior, independent of any physical injury. The ruling reflects a modernization of tort law, acknowledging the validity of psychological injuries. By establishing a stringent four-part test requiring intentionality, extreme and outrageous conduct, causation, and a disabling emotional response, the court carefully circumscribes the new cause of action to prevent a flood of litigation over minor insults or 'bad manners,' thus balancing the protection of individual dignity against the need for social resilience.
