Kosmala v. Paul
1994 WL 576094, 644 So. 2d 856 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An artisan does not have a cause of action for nonpecuniary damages if a patron breaches a contract for artistic performance, as the artisan's nonpecuniary benefit is derived from their own performance, not the patron's. Furthermore, termination of an employment contract, even if humiliating, does not meet the high threshold for intentional infliction of emotional distress without extreme and outrageous conduct.
Facts:
- Dr. Jerzy S. Kosmala was employed as a co-principal violist for the Baton Rouge Symphony Association (BRSA).
- James Paul, the BRSA's music director, had previously asked Dr. Kosmala to resign his position.
- Dr. Kosmala took an approved leave of absence and was out of town.
- While Dr. Kosmala was on his approved leave, the BRSA mailed his contract for the upcoming 1988-89 season to his Baton Rouge address.
- Dr. Kosmala's existing contract required him to return the new contract by a specific deadline to confirm his intent to play in the upcoming season.
- Due to being out of town, Dr. Kosmala did not receive the contract in time to return it by the deadline.
- As a result of the missed deadline, the BRSA did not re-engage Dr. Kosmala for the 1988-89 season.
Procedural Posture:
- Dr. Kosmala filed suit against the Baton Rouge Symphony Association (BRSA) and James Paul in a state trial court.
- Defendants filed exceptions arguing the dispute was subject to arbitration, which the trial court denied.
- After a series of appeals on the arbitration issue up to the Louisiana Supreme Court, the trial court's denial of the exceptions was ultimately upheld.
- The parties settled a portion of the case, reinstating Dr. Kosmala and paying his back wages, leaving only the claims for nonpecuniary damages and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the remaining claims.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing Dr. Kosmala's remaining claims.
- Dr. Kosmala, as appellant, appealed the summary judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
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 an artisan, whose contract for artistic services is breached by the patron, have a claim for nonpecuniary damages under La.C.C. art. 1998, and do the circumstances of the breach constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress?
Opinions:
Majority - Gonzales, J.
No. An artisan is not entitled to recover nonpecuniary damages when a patron breaches a contract, and the patron's actions in this case did not rise to the level of intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court reasoned that under La.C.C. art. 1998, recovery for nonpecuniary loss requires that the benefit arise from the obligor's (patron's) performance. Here, Dr. Kosmala's nonpecuniary benefit—the gratification from performing—stems from his own actions, not the BRSA's. The court established a policy distinction: a patron can sue a breaching artisan for nonpecuniary loss (e.g., a ruined concert), but the artisan cannot sue the breaching patron for the loss of their own opportunity to perform. Regarding the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, the court applied the test from White v. Monsanto Co. and found that the failure to renew a contract, while potentially embarrassing, was not 'so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency,' and therefore did not meet the legal standard for the tort.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of nonpecuniary damages under Louisiana contract law, particularly for artisans and performers. It establishes a one-sided rule where a patron may recover for nonpecuniary loss from a breaching artisan, but the artisan cannot recover similar damages from a breaching patron. This holding limits the remedies available to artists whose primary loss from a breach might be the non-economic satisfaction of their work rather than purely financial harm. The case also reinforces the high evidentiary bar for claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress in the employment context, suggesting that typical, albeit upsetting, employment actions like non-renewal of a contract are insufficient to establish such a claim.
