Nims v. Harrison
2000 WL 1353207, 768 So.2d 1198 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To state a cause of action for intentional infliction of mental distress, the alleged conduct must be so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and be utterly intolerable in a civilized community.
Facts:
- Rosalind Nims was a teacher at Leon High School.
- Joey Harrison and John George Papagiannis were students at Leon High School who were about to graduate.
- On May 19-20, 1998, Harrison and Papagiannis participated in the planning, editing, writing, printing, copying, and distribution of a newsletter/publication they entitled the 'Low Life.'
- The 'Low Life' specifically described Nims with highly offensive language, including racial slurs (e.g., 'gigaboo,' 'nigger'), personal insults ('stupid bitch ass bitch,' 'fucking whore ass faget maggot burger'), death threats ('I WILL KILL YOU'), and explicit threats of sexual violence against her and her family ('I WILL RAPE YOU AND ALL OF YOUR CHILDREN AND COUSINS').
Procedural Posture:
- Rosalind Nims filed complaints against Joey Harrison and John George Papagiannis in a trial court (court of first instance).
- Nims subsequently filed second amended complaints against Harrison and Papagiannis, alleging intentional infliction of mental distress.
- The trial court dismissed Nims' second amended complaints with prejudice.
- Rosalind Nims (appellant) appealed the dismissals to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
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 alleged conduct involving death threats, racial slurs, and threats of sexual violence against a teacher and her children, published in a student-created newsletter, meet the high standard of 'outrageous conduct' necessary to state a claim for intentional infliction of mental distress?
Opinions:
Majority - Lawrence, J.
Yes, the conduct alleged is sufficiently outrageous to state a cause of action for intentional infliction of mental distress. The court affirmed that Florida law recognizes the tort of intentional infliction of mental distress, citing `Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Sheehan` and `Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. McCarson` for the established standard that the conduct must be 'so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all bounds of decency.' The court distinguished previous cases that did not find conduct outrageous by noting that those cases did not involve direct threats of killing the plaintiff and raping her children, nor did they allege facts as extreme as those presented here. The court emphasized its responsibility to adapt common law to 'accommodate principles of justice, reason and common sense,' concluding that the alleged conduct, which included explicit threats of violence and severe racial and sexual degradation, was 'utterly intolerable in a civilized community' and therefore met the high standard required for the tort.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the threshold for 'outrageous conduct' in Florida's intentional infliction of mental distress tort, particularly in the context of threats involving physical and sexual violence, coupled with racial slurs. It signals that while the standard is high, explicit threats of harm to a person and their family, especially when published, can indeed cross that line, even if prior cases involving mere insults or harassment did not. The ruling reinforces the idea that the common law must evolve to address acts considered fundamentally unjust and beyond societal norms, providing a potential avenue for victims of extreme, targeted harassment to seek legal recourse.
