Dowty et al. v. Riggs
385 SW 3d 117, 2010 Ark. 465 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In Arkansas, a plaintiff cannot recover damages for the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress without an accompanying physical injury.
Facts:
- Karen Dowty, her husband Alvis Eugene 'Gene' Dowty, and their minor son, Riggs Dowty, went to the home of Karen's mother, Evelyn Riggs, to help with yard work.
- Upon their arrival, Evelyn's adult son, Perry Riggs, approached their vehicle displaying a .25-caliber pistol.
- When Gene Dowty got out of the vehicle, Perry Riggs shot him in the arm.
- Perry Riggs continued to fire the gun after Karen Dowty exited the vehicle.
- Karen Dowty removed her son Riggs from the vehicle and fled the scene.
- Neither Karen Dowty nor Riggs Dowty sustained any physical injuries during the incident.
- The Dowtys alleged that Evelyn Riggs knew her son, Perry, posed a danger to others due to his history of violence, drug use, and psychiatric issues.
Procedural Posture:
- Karen Dowty, Gene Dowty, and Riggs Dowty filed a complaint against Evelyn Riggs in an Arkansas circuit court (trial court).
- The complaint alleged negligence and, on behalf of Karen and Riggs, negligent infliction of emotional distress.
- Evelyn Riggs filed a motion for summary judgment on the claims made by Karen and Riggs Dowty.
- The circuit court granted Evelyn Riggs's motion for summary judgment on those claims.
- The circuit court issued a Rule 54(b) certificate, making its partial summary judgment order final and immediately appealable.
- Karen and Riggs Dowty (appellants) appealed the summary judgment order to the Arkansas Supreme Court, where Evelyn Riggs was the appellee.
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 Arkansas law recognize a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress where the plaintiffs did not suffer any physical injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Hannah, C.J.
No. Arkansas does not recognize the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress. The court adheres to its long-standing precedent that there can be no recovery for fright or mental anguish caused by negligence where there is no physical injury. The court reasoned that upholding precedent is a matter of public policy unless a great injustice would result, and the appellants failed to make such a showing. The traditional rationale for this rule is that mental suffering alone is too remote, uncertain, and difficult to ascertain. Although the court acknowledged that most other jurisdictions recognize the tort and that modern science may undermine the traditional rationale, it concluded that the facts of this particular case do not warrant overruling its common law and creating a new tort, especially since the appellants' inability to recover from the direct attacker is not a sufficient reason to change established law.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms Arkansas's position as a strict adherent to the traditional physical-injury requirement for claims of negligent infliction of emotional distress, placing it in a shrinking minority of jurisdictions. The court's ruling emphasizes a strong preference for stare decisis and judicial restraint in creating new common law torts. While the court leaves the door open to revisiting the issue in a future case, this opinion solidifies a significant legal barrier for plaintiffs in Arkansas seeking damages for purely emotional harm resulting from negligence, forcing them to frame their claims under different theories like intentional torts or willful and wanton conduct to recover for mental anguish without physical injury.
Unlock the full brief for Dowty et al. v. Riggs