Rogers v. Louisville Land Co.
367 S.W.3d 196 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish the 'serious mental injury' element of an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, a plaintiff must present specific evidence of significant impairment, such as physiological or psychological symptoms, medical treatment, or disruption to daily functioning. A plaintiff's testimony of merely being 'emotional' and 'tearful' is insufficient.
Facts:
- In 2001, Betty Saint Rogers' son died and was buried at Fort Hill Cemetery, which was owned by Louisville Land Company.
- Following her son's burial, Rogers purchased easements for two adjacent plots from Louisville Land Company.
- At the time of purchase, a representative for Louisville Land Company assured Rogers that the cemetery was regularly mowed and maintained.
- Contrary to these assurances, Rogers observed the cemetery was in a state of disrepair, with grass higher than headstones, overturned markers, poor roads, and debris.
- The condition of the cemetery caused Rogers to become 'very emotional' and 'tearful' when she visited her son's grave.
- Joe V. Williams, III was the sole shareholder and owner of Louisville Land Company and admitted he had been aware of maintenance problems at the cemetery for years.
Procedural Posture:
- Betty Saint Rogers sued Louisville Land Company and its owner, Joe V. Williams, III, in the Chancery Court for Bradley County, Tennessee (a trial court).
- After a non-jury trial, the court found for Rogers, awarding her $45,000 in compensatory damages for 'outrageous conduct' (IIED), $250,000 in punitive damages, and attorney's fees.
- The defendants, Louisville Land Company and Williams, appealed the decision to the Tennessee Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, finding that Rogers had failed to present sufficient proof of a 'serious mental injury.'
- Ms. Rogers (the appellant) then sought and was granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court of Tennessee (the state's highest 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 plaintiff's testimony of being 'very emotional' and 'tearful,' without more evidence, satisfy the 'serious mental injury' element required to recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress?
Opinions:
Majority - Lee, J.
No. A plaintiff's testimony of being 'very emotional' and 'tearful,' without more, is insufficient to establish the 'serious mental injury' element for an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. To recover, a plaintiff must prove the defendant's conduct was (1) intentional or reckless, (2) so outrageous that it is not tolerated by civilized society, and (3) resulted in a serious mental injury. The court clarified that proving a 'serious mental injury' requires more than transient or trivial emotional distress. It established a non-exclusive, multi-factor framework for assessing such an injury, looking for evidence of physiological manifestations, psychological symptoms, medical treatment, impairment of daily functioning, and the duration and intensity of the distress. In this case, Ms. Rogers' proof was 'at best, sparse,' consisting only of her testimony that the situation was 'very emotional, very tearful.' She presented no evidence that she suffered from physiological or psychological symptoms, sought medical treatment, or incurred any significant impairment in her daily functioning. Therefore, she failed to meet the evidentiary burden for the third element of the tort, and the damages awarded by the trial court were reversed.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies and arguably raises the evidentiary standard for the 'serious mental injury' element in Tennessee emotional distress torts. By providing a concrete, multi-factor framework, the court moves away from a vague standard and requires plaintiffs to produce specific, objective evidence of their harm. This decision makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to succeed on claims of intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress based solely on their own testimony about their feelings. The ruling aims to filter out trivial or fraudulent claims, thereby protecting the judicial system from being flooded with litigation over everyday emotional upsets and ensuring that recovery is reserved for genuinely severe emotional harm.
Unlock the full brief for Rogers v. Louisville Land Co.