ANGIE M. v. Superior Court
44 Cal. Rptr. 197, 44 Cal. Rptr. 2d 197, 37 Cal. App. 4th 1217 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A civil cause of action for sexual exploitation of a minor can be implied from violations of criminal statutes designed to protect minors, and such conduct may constitute “outrageous” behavior for intentional infliction of emotional distress and “despicable” conduct for punitive damages, even without explicit statutory civil remedies.
Facts:
- Angie M. was a minor female at all times relevant to the complaint.
- Robert Hiemstra was a 48-year-old medical doctor.
- In about July 1993, Angie was employed by a medical service where she met Hiemstra.
- Approximately one week later, Hiemstra began inducing Angie into an "indecent relationship."
- Hiemstra knew Angie's age and, by gaining her confidence, learned of her "dysfunctional family" background and other vulnerabilities.
- Hiemstra exploited Angie’s vulnerability and confidence to seduce her into a meretricious relationship that began in July 1993 and lasted until March 1994.
- During this relationship, Hiemstra had sexual relations with Angie "virtually daily," performed oral copulation on her, provided her with controlled substances and alcohol, paid her to procure illicit substances for him, and took her to a nude beach.
Procedural Posture:
- Angie M. filed an original complaint against Robert Hiemstra, asserting causes of action for unlawful seduction of, and relations with, a minor, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and battery, seeking general, special, and punitive damages.
- Hiemstra demurred to all causes of action and moved to strike certain allegations, including the claim for punitive damages.
- The trial court sustained Hiemstra's demurrer to the unlawful seduction, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress causes of action with leave to amend, while overruling the demurrer to the battery cause of action and denying the motion to strike.
- Angie M. filed a first amended complaint, alleging causes of action for unlawful seduction of a person below the age of legal consent/childhood sexual abuse, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and battery, again seeking punitive damages.
- Hiemstra demurred generally and specially to the first and second causes of action and moved to strike punitive damages.
- The trial court sustained the demurrer as to both the unlawful seduction/sexual abuse and intentional infliction of emotional distress causes of action without leave to amend and granted the motion to strike punitive damages.
- Angie M. filed a petition for extraordinary relief (writ of mandate) with the California Court of Appeal, seeking review of the trial court's order.
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 a civil cause of action for unlawful seduction/sexual abuse exist against an adult who engages in sexual acts with a minor, can such conduct constitute "outrageous" behavior for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and does it warrant a claim for punitive damages?
Opinions:
Majority - Froehlich, J.
Yes, a civil cause of action for unlawful seduction/sexual abuse can exist against an adult engaging in sexual acts with a minor, such conduct can be considered "outrageous" for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and it can warrant a claim for punitive damages. The court reasoned that a civil cause of action can be implied from the violation of a criminal statute embodying a public policy, even without an explicit civil remedy. Penal Code sections 261.5 (unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor) and 288a (oral copulation with a person under 18) demonstrate a strong public policy to protect minors from sexual exploitation. Furthermore, Code of Civil Procedure sections 340 and 340.1, establishing statutes of limitation for "seduction of a person below the age of legal consent" and "childhood sexual abuse," imply legislative intent to allow such civil actions. Angie, as a minor, falls within the protected class, thus stating a cause of action. This claim does not duplicate battery, which requires distinct elements like intent to cause offensive contact and lack of consent. Regarding intentional infliction of emotional distress, the alleged conduct—a 48-year-old medical doctor initiating an extended sexual relationship with a minor, providing illegal substances, and exploiting her vulnerabilities—could reasonably be deemed "outrageous," exceeding all bounds tolerated in a civilized society, and thus satisfies the element for demurrer purposes. While Angie's complaint lacked sufficient factual allegations of "severe" emotional distress, this was an amendable defect, and denying leave to amend was an abuse of discretion. Allegations of Hiemstra's knowledge of Angie's vulnerabilities were sufficient for intent and causation. Finally, for punitive damages, the court found the alleged conduct sufficient to establish "malice" or "oppression," as required by Civil Code section 3294. The exploitation of a minor, coupled with providing illegal substances and leveraging vulnerabilities, could be found by a jury to constitute "despicable conduct with willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others," justifying a claim for punitive damages. The trial court's rulings to sustain the demurrer without leave to amend and strike punitive damages were an abuse of discretion, warranting extraordinary relief.
Analysis:
This case establishes an important precedent by confirming that civil remedies for the sexual exploitation of minors can be implied from criminal statutes, even where no explicit civil cause of action is provided. This broadens the scope of potential civil liability for perpetrators of such crimes and provides victims with additional avenues for redress beyond criminal prosecution. The ruling also clarifies the application of the "outrageous" and "despicable" conduct standards for intentional infliction of emotional distress and punitive damages, emphasizing that the severe nature of child exploitation can meet these high thresholds. This decision reinforces the judiciary's commitment to protecting vulnerable populations and ensures that procedural hurdles, like curable pleading defects, do not unduly prevent victims from pursuing justice.
