Dickens v. Puryear
302 N.C. 437, 276 S.E.2d 325 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The tort of intentional infliction of mental distress consists of (1) extreme and outrageous conduct, (2) which is intended to cause and does cause, (3) severe emotional distress. Threats of future harm, distinct from threats of imminent harm that constitute assault, can form the basis of this tort, which is governed by the three-year statute of limitations for personal injury, not the one-year statute for assault and battery.
Facts:
- Plaintiff Dickens, a 31-year-old man, was involved in a relationship with the defendants' 17-year-old daughter that included sex, alcohol, and marijuana.
- On April 2, 1975, defendants Earl and Ann Puryear lured Dickens to a rural location.
- Upon Dickens' arrival, Ann Puryear made a brief appearance, stated she did not want to see him, and immediately left the scene.
- Earl Puryear then pointed a pistol at Dickens and summoned four masked men armed with nightsticks.
- For approximately two hours, Dickens was beaten into semi-consciousness, handcuffed to farm machinery, and had his hair cut by Earl Puryear with a knife.
- During the ordeal, Earl Puryear threatened Dickens with castration, and the attackers held discussions within Dickens' hearing about whether to kill or castrate him.
- After the beatings ceased, Earl Puryear threatened to kill Dickens if he did not permanently leave North Carolina.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Dickens filed a complaint against defendants Earl and Ann Puryear in a North Carolina trial court, alleging intentional infliction of mental distress.
- The complaint was filed more than one year but less than three years after the alleged events occurred.
- Before filing an answer, the defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was for assault and battery and thus barred by the one-year statute of limitations.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of both defendants.
- Dickens, as appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment for the Puryears, who were the appellees.
- Dickens, as appellant, appealed the Court of Appeals' decision to the Supreme Court of North Carolina.
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 claim based on conduct that includes both time-barred assaults and batteries, as well as threats of future harm, constitute a distinct claim for intentional infliction of mental distress that is governed by a three-year statute of limitations?
Opinions:
Majority - Exum, Justice
Yes. A claim based on threats of future harm can constitute intentional infliction of mental distress, a tort distinct from assault and battery and governed by the three-year statute of limitations. The court formally recognized the tort of intentional infliction of mental distress (IIED) in North Carolina, adopting the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 definition, which requires: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct, (2) intent to cause (or reckless disregard of the likelihood of causing) severe emotional distress, and (3) resulting severe emotional distress. The court distinguished assault, which requires apprehension of imminent harm, from threats of future harm, which are actionable as IIED. While the physical beatings and threats of immediate castration constituted assaults and batteries barred by the one-year statute of limitations, Earl Puryear's final threat to kill Dickens if he did not leave the state was a threat of future harm. This threat, considered in the context of the preceding violence, was sufficient to support a claim for IIED. The court also clarified that physical injury is not an element of IIED, disapproving of dictum in the prior case of Stanback v. Stanback. However, summary judgment for Ann Puryear was affirmed due to insufficient evidence of her involvement in a conspiracy to inflict mental distress.
Analysis:
This case is significant for formally establishing the independent tort of intentional infliction of mental distress (IIED) in North Carolina and adopting the modern Restatement definition. By distinguishing threats of future harm (IIED) from threats of imminent harm (assault), the court created a separate cause of action with a longer, three-year statute of limitations. This decision provides a crucial remedy for victims of severe psychological harm resulting from outrageous conduct that may not fit traditional tort categories. Furthermore, by explicitly stating that physical injury is not a required element, the court aligned North Carolina with the modern trend and lowered the barrier for plaintiffs suffering from purely emotional or psychological injuries.
Unlock the full brief for Dickens v. Puryear