Korbin v. Berlin
177 So. 2d 551 (1965)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress exists, even without physical injury, when a defendant engages in tortious conduct that is malicious or demonstrates great indifference to the rights of others and is calculated to cause severe emotional distress to a person of ordinary sensibilities.
Facts:
- Wendy Korbin was a six-year-old girl.
- Muriel Berlin approached Korbin.
- Berlin made several statements to Korbin, including: 'Do you know that your mother took a man away from his wife?' and 'Do you know that a man is sleeping in your mother's room?'
- Berlin also told Korbin that God would punish her mother.
- The statements were allegedly knowingly false and made for the purpose of causing Korbin undue emotional stress, mental pain, and anguish.
- As a result of the statements, Korbin allegedly suffered injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Wendy Korbin, by her guardian, filed a complaint against Muriel Berlin in a Florida trial court.
- The trial court dismissed Korbin's amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
- Korbin, as the appellant, appealed the dismissal to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
- Muriel Berlin is the appellee in the appeal.
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 making malicious, knowingly false, and distressing statements to a six-year-old child about her mother constitute an actionable tort for intentional infliction of emotional distress in the absence of physical injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Carroll, J.
Yes. A cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress is sufficiently stated when the alleged conduct is tortious, malicious, and calculated to cause severe emotional distress. The court distinguished this case from those involving simple negligence, where recovery for mental anguish requires a physical injury. Here, the claim is founded purely in tort where the wrongful act implies malice. Applying the standard from Slocum v. Food Fair Stores, the determinative question is whether the defendant's conduct was 'calculated to cause severe emotional distress to a person of ordinary sensibilities.' The court concluded that making such statements to a young child about her mother was intended to shame and shock her, and it cannot be said as a matter of law that this act was not calculated to cause severe emotional distress. Therefore, the complaint stated a valid cause of action.
Dissenting - Swann, J.
No. The dissent would affirm the trial court's dismissal based on the authority of Slocum v. Food Fair Stores of Florida, Inc. and Mann v. Roosevelt Shop, Inc., implying the conduct did not meet the requisite level of outrageousness to be actionable.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying the application of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress in Florida, particularly concerning vulnerable plaintiffs. It establishes that the outrageousness of conduct is context-dependent, and words directed at a child may be actionable even if they might not be if directed at an adult. The decision reinforces that the tort serves to protect against severe emotional harm resulting from malicious and extreme conduct, thereby lowering the barrier for such claims where a defendant targets a known vulnerability, such as a child's dependence on and relationship with their parent.
