Cochran v. Cochran
98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5400, 65 Cal. App. 4th 488, 76 Cal. Rptr. 2d 540 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For conduct to be actionable as intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), it must be so extreme and outrageous as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and be regarded as utterly intolerable in a civilized community; mere insults, indignities, or threats arising from a bitter personal dispute are insufficient.
Facts:
- Patricia Ann Cochran and Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr. had a long-term intimate relationship that produced a son.
- After the relationship ended, Johnnie Cochran married another woman, who was later publicly presented as the mother of the son he had with Patricia Cochran.
- In response, Patricia Cochran and her daughter, April M. Somers, appeared on a television show to discuss their relationships with Johnnie Cochran.
- This television appearance enraged Johnnie Cochran, leading to an extremely antagonistic relationship between the parties.
- On June 29, 1996, Johnnie Cochran left a message on his son's answering machine, knowing Patricia Cochran was living there and would hear it.
- The message stated he was going to 'deliver for April the Value Jet around the world vacation package,' a reference to a recent, fatal Value Jet airliner crash.
- Patricia Cochran and April Somers heard the message and interpreted it as a death threat, causing them severe emotional distress.
Procedural Posture:
- Patricia Ann Cochran and April M. Somers filed a complaint against Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr. in the Superior Court of L.A. County (trial court), alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr. filed a demurrer to the complaint.
- The plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint.
- Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr. filed a demurrer to the first amended complaint, arguing the alleged conduct was not outrageous as a matter of law.
- The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and entered a judgment of dismissal against the plaintiffs.
- Plaintiffs Patricia Ann Cochran and April M. Somers appealed the dismissal to the California Court of Appeal (intermediate appellate 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 a message left on an answering machine, referencing a recent deadly plane crash as a 'vacation package' for an estranged family member in the context of a bitter dispute, constitute extreme and outrageous conduct sufficient to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress?
Opinions:
Majority - Godoy Perez, J.
No, the message does not constitute extreme and outrageous conduct sufficient for an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. The tort of IIED is reserved for conduct that is so outrageous it exceeds all bounds of decency tolerated in a civilized community, not for mere insults, indignities, or threats. The court reasoned that the alleged 'Value Jet' message, viewed in the context of a bitter feud between parties to a failed intimate relationship, was the 'steam' of an irascible temper rather than an actionable threat. It characterized the conduct as part of the 'hostile unpleasantries' common in such disputes, which, while hurtful, fall short of the 'atrocious' and 'utterly intolerable' standard required for liability. The court distinguished this case from those involving direct and unambiguous threats of physical violence, concluding that the message and other alleged boasts were 'petty oppressions' for which the law does not provide a remedy.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high threshold for establishing the 'outrageous conduct' element of an IIED claim, particularly in disputes arising from personal relationships. It clarifies that conduct, even if malicious, threatening, and intended to cause distress, will not be deemed outrageous if it can be characterized as typical 'spleen-venting' or 'petty oppression' within a feud. The ruling serves to limit the scope of the tort, preventing courts from becoming arbiters of every insult or hurt feeling exchanged between feuding parties. It establishes a strong precedent that context matters immensely, and the 'rough edges' of interpersonal conflict are generally not actionable unless the conduct is truly beyond the pale of civilized behavior.
