Brooker v. Silverthorne
99 S.E. 350 (1919)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Mere words, however abusive, threatening, or insulting, do not constitute an actionable tort for civil damages in the absence of an assault or a special relationship imposing a duty of protection. For a threat to be actionable, it must express a credible intention to inflict future harm and be made under circumstances that would cause a person of ordinary reason and firmness to fear for their safety.
Facts:
- Plaintiff worked as a night operator at the telephone exchange in Barnwell.
- On October 27, 1916, Defendant called the exchange and asked Plaintiff to make a connection for him.
- When Plaintiff was unable to complete the connection, Defendant became angry and cursed at her.
- Defendant said to Plaintiff, "You are a God damned liar. If I were there, I would break your God damned neck."
- As a result of the Defendant's language and threat, Plaintiff became fearful and suffered severe nervous shock, which made her sick and unfit for duty.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff sued Defendant in the trial court for damages.
- Defendant filed a demurrer to the complaint, arguing it was legally insufficient, but the trial court overruled it.
- The case went to a jury, which found in favor of the Plaintiff and awarded her $2,000 in damages.
- During the trial, after the plaintiff presented her evidence, the defendant moved for a nonsuit (a directed verdict), which the trial court refused.
- Defendant, the appellant, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of South Carolina.
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 abusive and threatening language spoken over a telephone, which causes the recipient to suffer mental anguish and nervous shock, constitute a valid cause of action for civil damages?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Hydrick
No, abusive and threatening language under these circumstances does not constitute a valid cause of action. The law does not provide a remedy for mere words, insults, or threats that are not accompanied by a physical assault. The court distinguished this case from those involving common carriers, where a special duty exists to protect passengers from insult. Here, no such special duty existed between the defendant and the plaintiff. The court reasoned that the defendant's words did not constitute an actionable threat because they were conditional ('If I were there...') and did not express a genuine intention to inflict future harm. A person of ordinary firmness would recognize the language as a momentary fit of passion rather than a credible menace.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the traditional common law reluctance to recognize a cause of action for purely emotional harm caused by verbal conduct alone. It establishes a high threshold for what constitutes an actionable threat, requiring more than just offensive or frightening language. The ruling differentiates general social interactions from situations involving special relationships, like that of a common carrier and passenger, where a higher duty of care is imposed. This case serves as a foundational example of the historical legal perspective before the modern development of torts such as Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED).
Unlock the full brief for Brooker v. Silverthorne