Computer Publications, Inc. v. Welton
19 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 368, 49 P.3d 732, 2002 OK 50 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A prolonged and persistent pattern of harassment and stalking, even without direct physical threats, can constitute 'extreme and outrageous' conduct sufficient to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress if it causes severe emotional harm.
Facts:
- Cameron Craig, owner of Computer Publications, Inc. (CPI), hired Alysia Beth Welton in May 1990.
- Around May 1991, Craig and Welton began a consensual sexual relationship that lasted for six years.
- Welton ended the relationship in May 1997.
- Craig did not want the relationship to end and attempted to resume it for the next five months.
- In October 1997, after resisting his overtures, Welton quit her job at CPI.
- For the next two years, Craig engaged in a campaign of harassment, including repeated phone calls, emails, letters, gifts, driving by her house, and appearing at restaurants she visited.
- Craig discovered Welton's new phone numbers and addresses after she changed them to avoid him, and twice dropped letters through the sunroof of her car at her new workplace.
- Welton did not respond to Craig's attempts to contact her and took active steps to avoid him.
Procedural Posture:
- Computer Publications, Inc. (CPI) sued Alysia Beth Welton in trial court for misappropriation of trade secrets and other claims.
- Welton filed a third-party claim against Craig for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) and a counterclaim against CPI.
- The trial court granted partial summary judgments, leaving only Welton's IIED claim against Craig and her counterclaim against CPI.
- Following a jury trial on the IIED claim, the trial court entered judgment on the jury's verdict in favor of Welton.
- Craig (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Court of Civil Appeals (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the judgment on the IIED claim, concluding Craig's conduct was not sufficiently extreme and outrageous to be submitted to a jury.
- Welton (petitioner) sought certiorari from the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, which was granted.
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 former employer and romantic partner's two-year campaign of persistent, unwanted contact and stalking following the termination of the relationship and employment constitute conduct so extreme and outrageous as to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress?
Opinions:
Majority - Boudreau, Justice
Yes. A defendant's pattern of conduct can be sufficiently extreme and outrageous to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court's role is to act as a gatekeeper, determining if reasonable people could differ on whether the conduct was outrageous; if so, the issue is for the jury. Here, Craig's two-year campaign of relentless and invasive harassment—which included calling, emailing, sending items, tracking Welton down after she moved and changed phone numbers, and showing up at places she frequented—could reasonably be viewed by a jury as 'atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.' Similarly, the evidence of Welton's resulting fear, physical symptoms like a rash and weight loss, and testimony that the experience was 'the most painful thing I've ever been through' was sufficient proof of severe emotional distress to be decided by the jury. Therefore, the trial court correctly denied the motion for a directed verdict and allowed the jury to decide the claim.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the 'extreme and outrageous' standard for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) in the context of a prior consensual relationship. It establishes that a cumulative pattern of post-relationship stalking and harassment, even without explicit physical threats, can meet the high threshold for IIED. The decision empowers trial courts to submit such cases to juries, affirming that persistent psychological torment can be as actionable as a single, overtly shocking act. This precedent is significant for future cases involving stalking and harassment, providing a basis for civil liability where a defendant's conduct creates an environment of pervasive fear and distress.
