Craft v. Rice
1984 Ky. LEXIS 254, 671 S.W.2d 247 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A claim for the tort of outrageous conduct causing severe emotional distress, also known as intentional infliction of emotional distress, is governed by the five-year statute of limitations for an injury to rights not otherwise enumerated, rather than the one-year statute for personal injury.
Facts:
- Albert Craft, an employee of Ashland Coal, was indicted for second-degree forgery related to allegedly falsifying weigh tickets.
- Subsequently, from May to July of 1978, a former sheriff named Rice allegedly began harassing Albert's wife, Irene Craft.
- The harassment included keeping Irene Craft under surveillance at her work and home.
- Rice also allegedly told Irene Craft over a CB radio that he would put her husband in jail.
- On one occasion, Rice allegedly drove his vehicle in a manner that forced Irene Craft's vehicle into an opposing lane of traffic.
- Rice also allegedly used the CB radio to communicate with Albert Craft, causing him mental anguish.
- As a result of the harassment, Irene Craft claimed she suffered chronic diarrhea, colitis, a nervous condition, and mental anguish.
- Neither Albert nor Irene Craft were ever physically touched by Rice during these events.
Procedural Posture:
- Albert and Irene Craft filed a lawsuit against Rice and others in the Boyd Circuit Court (trial court).
- The suit was filed more than one year after the last alleged act of harassment.
- At the close of the Crafts' case at trial, the defendants moved for a directed verdict, arguing the claim was barred by the one-year statute of limitations for personal injury.
- The trial court granted the directed verdict and dismissed the Crafts' case.
- The Crafts, as appellants, appealed the dismissal to the Kentucky Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court, affirmed the trial court's decision.
- The Crafts then appealed to the Supreme Court of Kentucky.
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 Kentucky's five-year statute of limitations for injuries to rights 'not arising on contract and not otherwise enumerated' apply to a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, rather than the one-year statute for 'injury to the person'?
Opinions:
Majority - Wintersheimer, J.
Yes, the five-year statute of limitations applies because the essence of the tort is the intentional interference with a person's rights, not a physical injury. The court officially adopts the tort of outrageous conduct causing severe emotional distress as defined in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46. The court reasons that the gist of this tort is the interference with the plaintiff's right to be free from such conduct, which causes emotional distress. Any resulting bodily harm is incidental rather than essential to the cause of action. This distinguishes it from traditional personal injury torts like assault and battery, which are governed by the one-year statute. The court finds support in its own precedent involving 'grave desecration' cases, which also applied the longer statute for interference with rights, and in the decisions of other jurisdictions that have applied longer, more general statutes of limitations to this tort.
Dissenting - Stephenson, J.
No, the one-year statute of limitations should apply. The dissent argues that the 'gist of the action' is plainly a personal injury, even if emotional, and thus the one-year statute is appropriate. Adopting Restatement § 46 is a mistake that will open the door to a 'spate of frivolous lawsuits.' Furthermore, the facts of this case do not rise to the level of 'extreme and outrageous' conduct required by the Restatement. The dissent contends that the defendants were entitled to a directed verdict on the grounds of insufficient evidence, and the majority should not have sent the case back for a new trial.
Analysis:
This landmark decision officially recognizes the independent tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), also known as outrageous conduct, in Kentucky by adopting Section 46 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. By classifying the tort as an injury to 'rights' rather than an injury to the 'person,' the court significantly broadened the timeline for plaintiffs to seek redress for severe emotional harm unaccompanied by physical contact. This holding establishes that the core of the injury in an IIED claim is the violation of one's right to be free from such conduct, thereby placing it under the state's five-year catch-all statute of limitations and distinguishing it from torts requiring physical harm.
