George v. Jordan Marsh Company
268 N.E.2d 915, 46 A.L.R. 3d 762, 359 Mass. 244 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
One who, by extreme and outrageous conduct, intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another is liable for such emotional distress and for any resulting bodily harm, even if the conduct does not constitute a previously recognized common law tort.
Facts:
- The plaintiff's emancipated son purchased goods on credit from Jordan Marsh Company.
- Jordan Marsh and its employees began efforts to collect the debt from the plaintiff, falsely claiming she had provided a written guaranty for her son's debt.
- The defendants intentionally badgered and harassed the plaintiff through late-night phone calls, dunning letters, and by charging the debt to her personal account.
- This conduct caused the plaintiff to suffer great mental anguish and emotional distress, which resulted in her having a heart attack.
- The plaintiff's attorney contacted the defendants, informed them she did not owe the debt, and requested that they stop the harassing tactics because they were adversely affecting her health.
- Despite this notice, the defendants persisted in their harassing conduct.
- As a result of the continued harassment, the plaintiff suffered greater emotional distress and a second heart attack, leaving her unable to work and incurring medical expenses.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff filed an action of tort against Jordan Marsh Company and two of its employees in the Massachusetts Superior Court.
- The defendants filed a demurrer to the complaint, arguing that the plaintiff's allegations failed to state a legally recognized cause of action.
- The Superior Court judge sustained the defendants' demurrer, effectively dismissing the case.
- The plaintiff appealed the order sustaining the demurrer to the state's highest court.
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 plaintiff state a valid cause of action for damages when a defendant's extreme and outrageous conduct, intentionally undertaken to cause emotional distress, results in severe emotional distress and subsequent physical harm, even in the absence of a traditional common law tort?
Opinions:
Majority - Quirico, J.
Yes. A plaintiff states a valid cause of action where a defendant's extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally causes severe emotional distress that results in bodily harm. The court held that the long-standing rule from Spade v. Lynn & Boston R.R., which barred recovery for mental distress without physical impact, was limited to cases of negligence and did not apply to intentional acts. The court explicitly recognized the independent tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress, adopting the standard set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46. It reasoned that the law must evolve to address new wrongs and that the fear of fraudulent claims was not a sufficient reason to deny recovery, as fact-finders are competent to assess the validity of such claims. The plaintiff's allegations, particularly the defendants' persistence after being warned of the adverse health effects, were sufficient to potentially constitute 'extreme and outrageous' conduct.
Analysis:
This is a landmark decision in Massachusetts tort law as it formally recognizes the independent tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). The ruling carves out a significant exception to the traditional impact rule from the Spade case, which had for decades barred recovery for purely emotional injuries in negligence actions. By adopting the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46, the court established a new standard for liability based on 'extreme and outrageous' conduct. This decision opened a new avenue for recovery for plaintiffs suffering from severe emotional harm caused by intentional misconduct that did not fit into traditional tort categories like assault or battery.
