Miller v. Linden
527 N.E.2d 47, 172 Ill. App. 3d 594 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A prolonged and persistent pattern of harassing conduct, which continues even after the perpetrator is warned of the distress it is causing, can constitute 'extreme and outrageous' conduct sufficient to state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Facts:
- Beginning in June 1986, Linda Miller was in a relationship with a person who co-owned a residence with Cynthia Linden.
- Linden, aware of the relationship and wishing to interfere, engaged in a series of harassing acts against Miller over a 10-month period.
- Linden repeatedly went to Miller's home to beat on the door, ring the doorbell, and shout obscenities, sometimes in the presence of Miller's family, child, and neighbors.
- On one occasion in November 1986, Linden followed Miller while Miller was in her car.
- On December 9, 1986, Miller's attorney formally advised Linden that her actions were causing Miller emotional and physical distress.
- Linden continued the harassment, culminating on March 14, 1987, when she came to Miller's home four separate times between 3:40 a.m. and 4:47 a.m., beating on the door, yelling obscenities, and honking her car horn for several minutes.
- As a result of Linden's conduct, Miller suffered weight loss, loss of sleep, stress anxiety, a gastric disorder, nervousness, and sought treatment from a physician.
Procedural Posture:
- Linda Miller filed an amended complaint against Cynthia Linden in the circuit court of Kane County, the state's trial court.
- Miller's complaint sought damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The trial court granted Linden's motion to dismiss Miller's complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
- Miller, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's order of dismissal to the Illinois Appellate 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 prolonged, 10-month campaign of harassment, including repeated late-night visits, pounding on doors, shouting obscenities, and following the victim, constitute 'extreme and outrageous' conduct sufficient to state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Reinhard
Yes, such a campaign of harassment constitutes extreme and outrageous conduct sufficient to state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. To state a claim, a plaintiff must allege: (1) the defendant’s conduct was extreme and outrageous; (2) the plaintiff's emotional distress was severe; and (3) the defendant knew severe emotional distress was substantially certain to result. The court found that the frequency and duration of Linden's conduct—13 incidents over 10 months—went far beyond mere insults or annoyances. Linden's persistence, even after being warned by Miller’s attorney, and the escalating nature of the harassment, particularly the late-night incidents, demonstrated conduct so outrageous as to be beyond all possible bounds of decency. Miller's alleged physical ailments and need for medical treatment were sufficient to plead severe emotional distress, and Linden’s continued actions after being warned demonstrated an intent to cause such distress.
Analysis:
This case is significant for its interpretation of the 'extreme and outrageous' conduct element of the IIED tort. The court clarifies that this high standard is not limited to a single, shocking event but can be met by a cumulative pattern of harassing behavior over time. By emphasizing the frequency, duration, and persistence of the defendant's conduct, the decision provides a clear precedent for future plaintiffs who have been subjected to a sustained campaign of harassment. It lowers the de facto barrier for IIED claims based on psychological abuse rather than a singular physical or overtly threatening act.
Unlock the full brief for Miller v. Linden