House v. Hicks
179 P.3d 730, 218 Or. App. 348, 2008 Ore. App. LEXIS 277 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Reporting unwanted, persistent contact to law enforcement is not extreme and outrageous conduct sufficient to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), even if the report contains some inaccuracies, when the core of the complaint is factually supported and the reporter's motive is self-protection.
Facts:
- Plaintiff House and University of Oregon employee Hastie met via an internet personal ad in spring 2003.
- They met for drinks and lunches three times in June and July 2003 and corresponded via email through the summer.
- In September 2003, Hastie stopped corresponding, but House continued to send her emails and place calls to her home.
- On December 1, 2003, Hastie sent House an email stating his behavior scared her, she felt pressured by him, and she wanted to end all contact.
- House continued to send Hastie gifts and emails to which she did not respond.
- In January 2004, House joined the university alumni association to gain access to the recreation center where he knew Hastie taught an exercise class.
- On January 28, 2004, House attended Hastie's class. Afterwards, Hastie, feeling uncomfortable, asked a colleague to walk her to her car.
- Over the next two days, House sent Hastie multiple lengthy emails and e-cards, calling her 'childish,' 'a flake,' and 'paranoid,' and stated his intention to attend her class for the rest of the term.
- On January 30, 2004, concerned for her safety, Hastie contacted the university's Department of Public Safety (DPS) to report that House was stalking her, and provided copies of his recent emails.
Procedural Posture:
- House filed a complaint in a state trial court against the University of Oregon, Hastie, and Hicks, alleging claims for defamation, intentional infliction of severe emotional distress (IIED), and deprivation of liberty.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims.
- The trial court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding as a matter of law that the alleged conduct did not meet the level required to support an IIED claim.
- House, as plaintiff-appellant, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Court of Appeals of Oregon.
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 reporting persistent and unwanted contact to law enforcement, even with some factual inaccuracies, constitute extreme and outrageous conduct sufficient to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress?
Opinions:
Majority - Sercombe, J.
No. The defendants' conduct does not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct required for a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. To be actionable, conduct must be so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency. The court acts as a gatekeeper in this determination, considering the totality of the circumstances. Here, several contextual factors weigh against classifying the conduct as outrageous: there was no 'special relationship' between the parties that imposed a greater duty on Hastie; House was not a particularly vulnerable plaintiff; and Hastie did not act with an ulterior motive, but rather for self-protection, even declining to pursue criminal charges. While Hastie's report may have contained some inaccuracies, such as the origin of their relationship, these were collateral to the core, truthful complaint of unwanted, persistent, and frightening contact from House. Public policy, as reflected in statutes encouraging reports of workplace safety concerns and stalking, favors such reporting. Therefore, no reasonable juror could find that Hastie or the university transgressed acceptable social boundaries.
Concurring - Edmonds, P. J.
No. While filing a false report of stalking could theoretically constitute an extraordinary transgression of socially tolerable conduct, the plaintiff's claim fails because there is no evidence of the requisite intent. To prevail on an IIED claim, a plaintiff must show the defendant either desired to inflict severe emotional distress or knew with substantial certainty that it would result. There is no evidence that Hastie or the other defendants desired to cause House distress; all evidence indicates their motive was to protect Hastie from perceived stalking. Furthermore, the circumstances are not such that the defendants would have known their actions were substantially certain to cause severe emotional distress. Public policy must afford latitude to those who report perceived threats to their safety, and it would be counterintuitive to hold them liable in tort because their reports contained embellishments or were not fully disclosed.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the high threshold for the 'outrageous conduct' element of an IIED claim, particularly in the context of reporting unwanted contact. The decision emphasizes the court's gatekeeping role and establishes that conduct undertaken for self-protection, even if imperfect, will generally not be deemed outrageous. It reinforces that courts will examine the plaintiff's own contributing behavior when assessing the defendant's reaction. The ruling provides significant protection for individuals who report perceived stalking or harassment, suggesting that minor inaccuracies in such reports will not expose them to tort liability so long as the core complaint is valid and the motive is protective rather than malicious.
Unlock the full brief for House v. Hicks