Reamsnyder v. Jaskolski
10 Ohio St. 3d 150, 10 Ohio B. 485, 462 N.E.2d 392 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person who, by extreme and outrageous conduct, intentionally or recklessly causes serious emotional distress to another is liable for that distress. The conduct must be so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.
Facts:
- A dispute arose between Reamsnyder and Agency Rent-A-Car concerning a rental vehicle.
- Jacoby, an agent for Underwriters Adjusting Co., had telephone conversations with Reamsnyder regarding the dispute.
- Cassidy, an agent for Agency Rent-A-Car, also had a telephone conversation with Reamsnyder.
- During his call, Cassidy threatened to "tear Reamsnyder's face off."
- Cassidy also falsely told Reamsnyder that the rental car at the center of the dispute had been reported to the police as stolen.
- Within twenty to thirty minutes of the initial call, Cassidy apologized to Reamsnyder and admitted that he had not, in fact, called the police.
- The following day, Cassidy and Reamsnyder met in person, and Cassidy apologized again for his outburst.
Procedural Posture:
- Reamsnyder filed a lawsuit in a state trial court against Cassidy, Agency Rent-A-Car, Jacoby, and Underwriters Adjusting Co.
- The defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motions and dismissed the case.
- Reamsnyder, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the intermediate court of appeals.
- The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- Reamsnyder then appealed to the state's highest court for review.
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 threatening a person over the telephone to tear their face off and falsely informing them that a rental car has been reported stolen constitute extreme and outrageous conduct sufficient to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, as to Cassidy's conduct; No, as to Jacoby's conduct. A claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress requires a showing of extreme and outrageous conduct, which does not extend to mere insults or annoyances but is reserved for behavior that is atrocious and utterly intolerable. The court found that the conduct of Jacoby in his telephone conversations with the appellant did not, as a matter of law, rise to this level. However, the alleged conduct of Cassidy, which included a threat of physical violence and a false report to police, is sufficient to state a claim for relief for intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress and should be decided by a fact-finder.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - William B. Brown, J.
No. While the majority applies the correct legal standard, Cassidy's alleged conduct is not sufficient to state a claim for extreme and outrageous conduct. This was a close case, but Cassidy's actions—a brief verbal outburst over the phone, which was not an immediate threat and was quickly followed by an apology—do not rise to the level of atrocious and intolerable behavior seen in successful IIED claims. The dissent evaluates several factors including the objective standard of an average community member, the short duration of the abuse, and the lack of an immediate threat, concluding that Cassidy's behavior, while improper, is more akin to the rough language and inconsiderate acts that society must tolerate.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for its application of the recently recognized tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) in Ohio. By allowing the claim against Cassidy to proceed while dismissing the one against Jacoby, the court helps to define the high threshold for what constitutes "extreme and outrageous" conduct. The case establishes that specific verbal threats of violence combined with false claims of involving law enforcement can be sufficient to state a claim for IIED, even if they occur in a single, brief incident and are later recanted. This provides important guidance for lower courts in determining which IIED claims can survive a motion to dismiss.
