State Rubbish Collectors Association v. Siliznoff
38 Cal. 2d 330, 240 P.2d 282 (1952)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress is established when one, in the absence of any privilege, intentionally subjects another to severe emotional distress, even without a resulting physical injury or a technical assault.
Facts:
- Peter Kobzeff, a member of the State Rubbish Collectors Association, secured a rubbish collection contract with Acme Brewing Company for his son-in-law, John Siliznoff.
- The contract was previously held by another Association member, Abramoff, and the Association's by-laws prohibited a member from taking another's account without payment.
- The Association's president and its inspector, Andikian, demanded that Siliznoff pay Abramoff for the account, telling him they would take it away if he did not.
- Andikian later confronted Siliznoff and threatened that if he did not settle with the Association, they would physically beat him, damage his truck, or put him out of business.
- At a subsequent meeting, under pressure from the board of directors, Siliznoff agreed to pay Abramoff $1,850 and signed a series of promissory notes to that effect.
- As a result of the fright he experienced during the dispute, Siliznoff became physically ill, vomited several times, and had to miss work for several days.
Procedural Posture:
- State Rubbish Collectors Association sued John Siliznoff in a California trial court to enforce payment of several promissory notes.
- Siliznoff filed a cross-complaint against the Association, asking the court to cancel the notes due to duress and seeking damages for assaults.
- A jury found against the Association on its complaint and for Siliznoff on his cross-complaint.
- The jury awarded Siliznoff $1,250 in general and special damages and $7,500 in exemplary damages.
- The trial court denied the Association's motion for a new trial, conditioned on Siliznoff's acceptance of a reduced exemplary damages award of $4,000, which he accepted.
- The State Rubbish Collectors Association, as plaintiff and appellant, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of California.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Can a person recover damages for severe emotional distress intentionally caused by another's outrageous conduct involving threats of future harm, even if those threats do not constitute a technical assault and there is no accompanying physical injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Traynor, J.
Yes. A cause of action is established when it is shown that one, in the absence of any privilege, intentionally subjects another to mental suffering incident to serious threats to his physical well-being, whether or not the threats constitute a technical assault. The court departs from the traditional rule requiring physical injury for recovery for emotional distress, adopting the modern view articulated in the Restatement of Torts. The court reasons that the interest in emotional and mental tranquility is worthy of legal protection in its own right against serious, intentional invasions. It dismisses the concern that allowing such claims will lead to a flood of fraudulent litigation, stating that a defendant's outrageous conduct is a better guarantee of genuine mental suffering than the presence of a resulting physical injury. Because the Association intentionally used outrageous coercive methods to cause Siliznoff extreme fright, it is liable for the resulting emotional and physical harm.
Analysis:
This landmark decision formally established the independent tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) in California. By removing the requirement that emotional distress be parasitic to another tort (like assault) or result in physical injury, the court significantly expanded tort liability. The case recognized mental and emotional tranquility as a legally protectable interest, setting a precedent that influenced tort law nationwide. This ruling shifted the focus from the consequences of the distress (physical harm) to the outrageous nature of the defendant's conduct.
Unlock the full brief for State Rubbish Collectors Association v. Siliznoff