Boyle v. Wenk
1979 Mass. LEXIS 885, 392 N.E.2d 1053, 378 Mass. 592 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A pattern of harassing conduct can constitute 'extreme and outrageous' behavior sufficient for a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, especially when the actor has notice that the victim is particularly susceptible to emotional harm.
Facts:
- John H. Wenk, a private investigator, was hired to investigate John Walsh.
- Wenk called Dolores Boyle, Walsh's sister-in-law, who told Wenk she had just been discharged from the hospital and asked him not to call again.
- Despite her request, Wenk called Boyle's home again the following week at 1:00 a.m., while she was alone with her children, causing her to feel fearful.
- The next week, Wenk went to the Walsh's apartment and, in Boyle's presence, admitted to making the calls.
- During this encounter, after Walsh joked that he 'robbed banks,' Wenk retorted that he had been 'in prison too for rape.'
- When police detectives arrived, Wenk falsely identified himself as a 'police officer.'
- As a result of these events, Boyle became emotionally distressed and physically ill, suffering from hemorrhaging that required extended medical and psychiatric care.
Procedural Posture:
- Dolores Boyle sued John H. Wenk in a state trial court for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- During the trial, Wenk's motion for a directed verdict was denied by the judge.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Boyle.
- After the verdict, Wenk filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which the trial judge also denied.
- Wenk, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Appeals Court.
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the state's highest court, transferred the appeal to itself on its own motion.
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 private investigator's pattern of conduct—including repeated unwanted phone calls, a late-night call, a false claim of being a police officer, and an intimidating comment—rise to the level of 'extreme and outrageous' conduct required for intentional infliction of emotional distress when the investigator knew the plaintiff had recently been hospitalized?
Opinions:
Majority - Abrams, J.
Yes, a jury could reasonably find the investigator's pattern of conduct was 'extreme and outrageous.' A claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress can be supported by the totality of the circumstances, not just isolated incidents. Repeated harassment may compound the outrageousness of individual acts. Furthermore, conduct that might otherwise be reasonable can become tortious when directed at an individual known to be particularly susceptible to emotional distress, as Wenk knew Boyle had just returned from the hospital, putting him on notice of her vulnerability. It is for the jury to decide whether such conduct was merely 'rude and clumsy' or 'extreme and outrageous.'
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the 'extreme and outrageous' standard for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) can be met through a cumulative pattern of harassment, rather than requiring a single, shocking event. It solidifies the importance of a defendant's knowledge of a plaintiff's particular susceptibility, holding that such knowledge can elevate otherwise non-tortious conduct to the level of outrageousness. This precedent empowers juries to consider the entire context of a defendant's behavior and provides a clearer path for plaintiffs who suffer severe distress from a course of conduct.
