Perati v. Atkinson
213 Cal. App. 2d 472, 28 Cal. Rptr. 898, 1963 Cal. App. LEXIS 2753 (1963)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish liability for interference with prospective business advantage, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the advantage would have been realized but for the defendant's actions. For intentional infliction of emotional distress without physical trauma, the defendant's conduct must be 'outrageous' and 'beyond all reasonable bounds of decency,' with an even higher standard of 'extreme outrage' required when no physical harm is alleged.
Facts:
- Plaintiff, a civil service toll collector, took a 1958 examination conducted by the State Personnel Board for promotion to toll sergeant.
- Plaintiff scored first in the written test but failed the oral examination, leading to his disqualification for the promotion.
- On January 8, 1960, defendant Navarro, a supervisor, directed plaintiff to "watch for a possible 502" (DUI suspect), providing a license number.
- Navarro subsequently called over the loudspeaker, instructing plaintiff to "hold him in the lane, take or get his car keys," referring to the suspected vehicle.
- The driver of the suspected car was a woman who gave no indication of intoxication.
- Plaintiff did not attempt to stop the car as directed by Navarro.
- Navarro then entered a notation in the official log stating plaintiff’s refusal to follow his directive.
- Plaintiff alleged that Navarro's acts were without authority, and his statements regarding the incident were knowingly untrue.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff secured a peremptory writ of mandate from a court requiring the State Personnel Board to make and file findings regarding his 1958 promotional examination.
- Plaintiff subsequently secured another peremptory writ of mandate requiring the State Personnel Board to conduct a hearing as to whether specific code sections had been complied with.
- Plaintiff filed a complaint in a trial court seeking damages against several defendants, including Navarro, for alleged injuries to his 'business relations' and for 'emotional distress'.
- Defendant Navarro filed a demurrer against the plaintiff's first amended complaint, arguing that it failed to state a cause of action.
- The trial court sustained Navarro's demurrer, finding the complaint insufficient to state a claim.
- The trial court entered a judgment of dismissal in favor of Navarro.
- Plaintiff appealed the judgment of dismissal to the California District Court of 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:
1. Does a complaint alleging a supervisor's false report, made after a promotional examination, state a cause of action for interference with a prospective business advantage? 2. Does a complaint alleging a supervisor's conduct that causes emotional distress, without physical harm or 'extreme outrage,' state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress?
Opinions:
Majority - Draper, P. J.
No, the complaint does not state a cause of action for either interference with a prospective business advantage or intentional infliction of emotional distress. Regarding interference with a prospective business advantage, the court reasoned that the alleged wrongful acts by Navarro occurred in 1960, while the promotional examination that resulted in plaintiff's disqualification was in 1958. Therefore, Navarro's actions could not have affected the outcome of the earlier examination or prevented plaintiff from realizing the promotion. The court cited Wilson v. Loew’s, Inc. for the principle that recovery requires the advantage to have 'otherwise been realized.' Furthermore, it was noted that plaintiff still holds his position as a toll collector, meaning Navarro did not interfere with his existing employment. Concerning intentional infliction of emotional distress, the court acknowledged that liability without physical trauma is possible, citing State Rubbish etc. Assn. v. Siliznoff. However, such liability arises only when the defendant's conduct is 'outrageous' or 'has gone beyond all reasonable bounds of decency' (Rest., 1948 Supp., Torts, § 46, com. g). The court emphasized that when physical harm has not resulted, courts 'tend to look for more in the way of extreme outrage' to ensure the claimed mental disturbance is not fictitious. The allegations against Navarro, even if true, were deemed to fall far short of 'extreme outrage' and lacked any assertion of physical injury, rendering them insufficient to meet the established legal standard.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the stringent requirements for pleading two distinct torts under California law. It reinforces that for tortious interference with a prospective economic advantage, a clear causal link is essential, demonstrating that the interfering act directly prevented the realization of an opportunity that was still viable. Crucially, the case sets a high bar for intentional infliction of emotional distress, especially when no physical injury is present, demanding conduct that is not merely upsetting or unfair but genuinely 'outrageous' and 'extreme' to overcome concerns about fictitious claims. This ruling limits the scope of such claims, requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate severe and objectively shocking behavior to proceed.
