Turman v. Central Billing Bureau, Inc.
279 Or. 443, 568 P.2d 1382, 1977 Ore. LEXIS 852 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Oppressive and abusive behavior by a collection agency that inflicts severe mental distress on a debtor can constitute the tort of outrageous conduct, particularly when the agency is aware of the debtor's special sensitivities or vulnerabilities.
Facts:
- Mrs. Turman suffered from blindness and glaucoma, requiring continuous treatment from the Oregon City Eye Clinic.
- As of March 1, 1971, Mrs. Turman had an outstanding account of $46 with the Oregon City Eye Clinic.
- In May 1971, Mrs. Turman's unpaid account was assigned to Central Billing Bureau, Inc. for collection.
- On June 16, 1971, Mrs. Turman received an anonymous phone call threatening service of papers from the sheriff's office, loss of her husband's job, and loss of her home, directing her to contact Central Billing.
- When Mrs. Turman called Central Billing, she was informed she must pay the bill in full immediately or face the same threats, and she explained her ongoing eye disability required her to maintain a good relationship with the Clinic.
- Mrs. Turman subsequently arranged a payment schedule with the Clinic and paid $10, and the Clinic notified Central Billing of this arrangement.
- Eight days after her payment arrangement with the Clinic, Mrs. Turman received another phone call from Central Billing where the agent became irate, shouted, used profane and abusive language (e.g., 'scum,' 'dead beat'), reiterated threats against her husband's job and home, and explicitly stated she 'could care less about [plaintiff’s] being blind.'
- Mrs. Turman became extremely upset, suffered severe emotional distress and headaches from these calls, leading to her hospitalization on June 25, 1971, due to her anxiety and physical condition.
Procedural Posture:
- Mrs. Turman (plaintiff) brought an action in the trial court against Central Billing Bureau, Inc. (defendant) to recover damages for outrageous conduct.
- The trial court denied Central Billing Bureau, Inc.'s motion for a directed verdict.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of Mrs. Turman, and judgment was entered on that verdict.
- Central Billing Bureau, Inc. (defendant/appellant) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Oregon.
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 collection agency's persistent, abusive, and threatening conduct, including knowledge of a debtor's medical vulnerability, constitute sufficient evidence of outrageous conduct to allow a jury to find liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress?
Opinions:
Majority - Bryson, J.
No, the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion for a directed verdict, as there was sufficient evidence for the case to go to the jury on the claim of outrageous conduct. The court affirmed that oppressive behavior by a collection agency, inflicting severe mental distress, is a recognized tort. Citing Prosser on Torts, the court noted that liability for 'outrageous conduct' often rests on a prolonged course of hounding by extreme methods and can arise from the defendant's knowledge of the plaintiff's special sensitivity or vulnerability. The court also referenced the Restatement of Torts (Second) § 46, Comment e, which specifically identifies collecting creditors as those who can be held liable for extreme abuse of their position. Given the detailed evidence of Central Billing's persistent, abusive, and threatening telephone calls over nine days, their specific knowledge of Mrs. Turman's blindness and need for medical care, and their explicit disregard for her condition while continuing to harass her, a jury could reasonably find such conduct 'outrageous in the extreme.' The court also found no abuse of discretion in the denial of a new trial based on alleged juror misconduct or insufficiency of evidence, as the defendant failed to diligently pursue information about potential juror bias during voir dire.
Analysis:
This case clarifies and strengthens the application of the tort of outrageous conduct (intentional infliction of emotional distress) in the context of debt collection. It underscores that a collection agency's abuse of its position, especially through prolonged, high-pressure, and personally targeted abusive tactics, can cross the line into actionable conduct. Crucially, the court emphasizes that knowledge of a debtor's particular vulnerabilities or sensitivities significantly increases the likelihood that a jury will deem such conduct 'outrageous,' setting a precedent for protecting vulnerable individuals from predatory collection practices. This case reinforces the judiciary's role in deferring to a jury's determination on what constitutes extreme and outrageous behavior when sufficient evidence is presented, while also highlighting the importance of timely raising concerns about juror bias.
