Checkley v. Boyd
107 P.3d 651, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 221, 198 Or.App. 110 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Deliberately making false, defamatory statements to a uniquely vulnerable and suggestible individual with the intent or substantial certainty of causing severe emotional distress to a third party constitutes an extraordinary transgression of socially tolerable conduct sufficient for a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).
Facts:
- Shad Wagner, a disabled adult with significant cognitive limitations and suggestibility, was under the legal guardianship of his brother, Plaintiff Checkley.
- Wagner developed a close relationship with Charles and Bimla Boyd, members of his Jehovah's Witness Congregation, where Mr. Boyd was an elder.
- The relationship between Wagner and Checkley deteriorated after the Boyds began telling Wagner that Checkley was neglecting him, abusing him, and stealing his money.
- The Boyds drove Wagner to a state Disability Services caseworker to report the alleged abuse, but a subsequent investigation found no evidence of neglect and concluded Wagner's allegations were inaccurate.
- Checkley's attorney sent 'cease and desist' letters to the Boyds and the Congregation, demanding they stop contacting Wagner.
- Despite the letter, the Boyds continued to contact Wagner by telephone and arranged for him to consult with an attorney to have Checkley removed as his guardian.
- A petition was filed to remove Checkley as guardian, which the probate court ultimately denied, finding that the proceeding would not have occurred without the encouragement of certain Congregation members and that it had damaged the brothers' relationship.
- Following the legal proceeding, Checkley concluded his relationship with Wagner was irreparably damaged, placed Wagner in an adult foster care facility, and sold the home they had shared.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Checkley sued the Boyds and the Keizer Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses in an Oregon trial court for IIED, wrongful use of a civil proceeding, and vicarious liability.
- The trial court dismissed Checkley's personal claims for failure to state a claim.
- Claims brought on behalf of Wagner proceeded to a jury trial, where the court granted a directed verdict for the defendants.
- Checkley appealed both rulings to the Court of Appeals of Oregon.
- In the first appeal (Checkley I), the Court of Appeals affirmed the directed verdict on Wagner’s claims but reversed the dismissal of Checkley's personal claims and remanded the case.
- On remand, the defendants moved for summary judgment on all of Checkley's claims.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims.
- Checkley appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Court of Appeals of Oregon.
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 deliberately making false, defamatory statements to a cognitively impaired and suggestible adult to turn him against his guardian and instigate a meritless legal proceeding constitute outrageous conduct sufficient to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED)?
Opinions:
Majority - Linder, J.
Yes. Deliberately making false, defamatory statements to a cognitively impaired and suggestible adult to turn him against his guardian constitutes outrageous conduct sufficient for a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. A jury could find that the Boyds' conduct was an 'extraordinary transgression of the bounds of socially tolerable conduct.' The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, supports a finding that the Boyds knew of Wagner's extreme suggestibility and cognitive vulnerabilities. They systematically and deliberately made false and defamatory statements to Wagner about his brother and caregiver, alleging neglect and financial mismanagement, which were disproven by a state investigation. The Boyds persisted in this conduct even after being warned to stop, and they instigated a meritless guardianship removal proceeding that the probate court found was damaging to the brothers' relationship. This pattern of manipulating a vulnerable person to destroy a familial and caregiving relationship rises to the level of outrageousness required for an IIED claim. Furthermore, an affidavit from a retained expert creates a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'outrageous conduct' element of the IIED tort, particularly in cases involving the exploitation of a vulnerable individual to inflict harm on a third party. It establishes that weaponizing knowingly false, defamatory statements against a person with diminished capacity to destroy a primary caregiving relationship goes beyond simple defamation and can meet the high threshold for outrageousness. The case sets a precedent for holding individuals accountable for intentionally destroying familial relationships through manipulation and false accusations, especially when targeting a formal relationship of care like a guardianship. By reversing summary judgment, the court reinforces that the determination of whether such conduct is socially intolerable is a question for the jury.
