Cullison v. Medley
570 N.E.2d 27 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff may recover damages for emotional distress resulting from a tortious trespass or an assault, even in the absence of a physical injury or impact. The tort of assault protects against the imminent apprehension of a battery and is completed by the invasion of the plaintiff's mental peace.
Facts:
- Dan R. Cullison invited Sandy Medley, a 16-year-old, to have a Coke with him after meeting her in a grocery store parking lot.
- A few hours later, Cullison answered a knock at the door of his mobile home and was told someone wanted to talk to him.
- After getting dressed, Cullison entered his living room and turned on the lights to find five members of the Medley family, including Sandy and her father, Ernest.
- Ernest Medley, who was on crutches, had a revolver in a holster strapped to his thigh.
- The Medleys verbally confronted Cullison, calling him a 'pervert'.
- During the confrontation, Ernest Medley threatened to 'jump astraddle' of Cullison while repeatedly grabbing for the holstered revolver and shaking it at Cullison.
- Cullison feared throughout the encounter that he was about to be shot.
- Months after the incident, on two separate occasions at a restaurant, Ernest Medley glared at Cullison in a menacing manner while visibly armed with a handgun.
Procedural Posture:
- Dan R. Cullison sued the Medley family in an Indiana trial court, alleging trespass, assault, harassment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The Medleys moved for summary judgment against Cullison.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Medleys, dismissing all of Cullison's claims.
- Cullison, as appellant, appealed the trial court's ruling to the Indiana Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the Medleys.
- Cullison, as petitioner, petitioned the Supreme Court of Indiana to accept transfer of the case.
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 the 'impact rule' prohibit a plaintiff from recovering damages for emotional distress resulting from a tortious trespass or an assault when no physical touching or injury occurs?
Opinions:
Majority - Krahulik, J.
No, the impact rule does not prohibit recovery for emotional distress resulting from an intentional trespass or assault. For trespass, when one intentionally invades the premises of another in a way that foreseeably provokes an emotional disturbance, the occupier may recover damages for that emotional injury. The historical rationale for the impact rule is no longer valid, as juries are capable of assessing emotional injury without the presence of a physical one. For assault, the tort protects the right to be free from the apprehension of a battery and constitutes a 'touching of the mind.' Therefore, damages for mental trauma and distress are the primary remedy for an assault. A jury could reasonably find that the Medleys' actions—surrounding Cullison in his home while armed and threatening him—created an imminent apprehension of harm in the mind of a reasonable person, thus constituting an assault.
Dissenting - Givan, J.
This justice dissented without providing a written opinion.
Analysis:
This decision significantly altered Indiana tort law by abrogating the 'impact rule' for the tort of intentional trespass, allowing recovery for purely emotional distress. It reaffirmed that assault is a psychic tort for which emotional damages are the primary remedy, clarifying that physical contact is not a prerequisite. By also formally recognizing the tort of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (though finding it inapplicable on these facts), the court opened the door for future claims and aligned Indiana with the modern trend in tort law that provides remedies for foreseeable, intentionally-caused emotional harm.
