Taiwo v. Kim Phan Thi Vu
249 Kan. 585, 822 P.2d 1024, 1991 Kan. LEXIS 203 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Maliciously filing a false police report and inducing a third party to lie to law enforcement in order to frame an individual for a crime constitutes extreme and outrageous conduct sufficient for the tort of outrage. The enormity of such outrageous conduct can itself be evidence of the severe emotional distress required for the claim, even without proof of bodily harm or medical treatment.
Facts:
- Sherry Taiwo was hired by Kim Phan Thi Vu to work at her daycare center but soon resigned because Ms. Vu would not comply with state laws.
- On August 31, 1988, Mrs. Taiwo and her husband went to collect her final paycheck, but Ms. Vu refused and an argument ensued.
- When the Taiwos returned later, Ms. Vu presented a check for a reduced amount, shoved Mrs. Taiwo in the chest, and locked her inside the building.
- While Mrs. Taiwo was locked inside, Ms. Vu went outside and called the police, falsely reporting that Mr. Taiwo was vandalizing her van.
- An officer who arrived knew the vandalism claim was false, as he had previously seen the same damage on the van during routine patrol.
- The next morning, Ms. Vu filed a formal false police report, claiming an eyewitness, Sally Matthies, saw Mr. Taiwo vandalize her Cadillac and provided his license plate number.
- Sally Matthies was actually Ms. Vu's employee, who later confessed to police that Ms. Vu had instructed her to lie.
- As a result of Ms. Vu's false report, police investigated the Taiwos for several weeks, requiring them to submit to polygraph tests to prove their innocence.
Procedural Posture:
- Sherry and Obafemi Taiwo filed a civil suit against Kim Phan Thi Vu in the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas (trial court), alleging assault, battery, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- At the close of the Taiwos' evidence at trial, Ms. Vu moved for a directed verdict, which the trial court took under advisement.
- The jury returned a general verdict for the Taiwos, awarding $20,000 in damages.
- The trial judge then assessed an additional $3,000 in punitive damages and formally denied Ms. Vu's earlier motion for a directed verdict.
- Ms. Vu (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Kansas Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial judge committed a procedural error by failing to rule on the motion for a directed verdict before submitting the case to the jury.
- The Taiwos (petitioners) sought and were granted a petition for review by the Supreme Court of Kansas (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 defendant's conduct of physically battering a plaintiff, falsely imprisoning her, and then filing a false police report and inducing an employee to lie to corroborate the false report, rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct sufficient to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress?
Opinions:
Majority - Abbott, J.
Yes. A defendant's conduct rises to the level of extreme and outrageous when it goes beyond mere insults or indignities and is regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society. Ms. Vu's actions—assault, battery, false imprisonment, and maliciously using the criminal justice process by filing a false police report and inducing an employee to lie—were not trivial but constituted a pattern of intentional and outrageous behavior. Furthermore, severe emotional distress can be proven even without medical evidence; the enormity of the outrageous conduct is itself important evidence that severe distress has occurred. The Taiwos' testimony about their fear of being jailed for a crime they did not commit, especially given Mr. Taiwo's vulnerability as a foreign national, was sufficient for a jury to find they suffered severe emotional distress.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the tort of outrage in Kansas, particularly what constitutes 'extreme and outrageous' conduct. It establishes that malicious abuse of the legal process, such as filing false police reports and suborning perjury, clearly meets this high threshold. Significantly, the ruling lowers the evidentiary burden for plaintiffs by affirming that the severity of the defendant's conduct can serve as proof of the victim's severe emotional distress, reducing the need for medical testimony or evidence of physical harm in cases of particularly egregious behavior. This precedent strengthens protections for individuals targeted by malicious falsehoods directed at law enforcement.
