Van Duyn v. Smith
173 Ill. App. 3d 523, 527 N.E.2d 1005 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A sustained, two-year campaign of personal harassment, including surveillance and direct confrontation, can constitute extreme and outrageous conduct sufficient to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, even when the conduct is intertwined with constitutionally protected speech on a matter of public concern.
Facts:
- Plaintiff was the executive director of National Health Care Services of Peoria, Inc., a licensed surgical center that provided first-trimester abortions.
- Defendant, a pro-life activist, engaged in a series of actions against the plaintiff over a two-year period from March 1984 to March 1986.
- Defendant followed plaintiff in his motor vehicle on several occasions and confronted her at the Peoria Airport, interfering with her ingress and egress.
- Defendant picketed plaintiff's private residence and her place of employment several times a month.
- Defendant confronted plaintiff at her home and work on several occasions, requesting that she quit her job.
- On March 15, 1986, defendant distributed a 'Wanted' poster and a 'Face The American Holocaust' poster to plaintiff’s friends and neighbors in the three-block area around her home.
- The 'Wanted' poster accused plaintiff of 'prenatal killing,' referred to her by the alias 'Margaret the Malignant,' and stated she had 'presided over more than 50,000 killings.'
- As a result of these actions, plaintiff suffered severe emotional and physical distress, requiring emergency medical care, a two-month period of doctor's care, and causing her to miss work and sleep.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed a multicount complaint against the defendant in the circuit court of Peoria County (trial court), alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress, libel, and invasion of privacy (false light).
- Defendant filed motions to dismiss all counts for failure to state a cause of action.
- The trial court granted the defendant's motions and dismissed all counts of the plaintiff's complaint with prejudice.
- Plaintiff appealed the trial court's dismissal to the Illinois Appellate 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 two-year course of conduct, which includes following the plaintiff, picketing her home and work, direct confrontations, and distributing provocative posters, allege sufficient facts to state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress against a private individual?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Scott
Yes, the defendant's course of conduct is sufficient to state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court determined that while the defendant's posters might be constitutionally protected speech if viewed in isolation, they were merely the culmination of a two-year series of harassing acts. The defendant's conduct of following the plaintiff in her car, confronting her at an airport, and picketing her private residence could be viewed by a jury as being directed at her personally, rather than at the subject of her occupation. The court distinguished this case from Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, holding that the 'actual malice' standard for IIED claims based on publications does not apply because the plaintiff is a private individual, not a public figure. The court concluded that the combination of all the defendant's alleged acts, taken as true, could be found by a jury to be 'outrageous beyond the bounds of decency.'
Analysis:
This case clarifies the boundary between protected speech activities and tortious conduct in the context of public protests. It establishes that a pattern of conduct, rather than a single act of speech, can form the basis for an intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) claim. The decision emphasizes that even on highly controversial public issues like abortion, activists do not have an unlimited right to engage in personal harassment that targets a private individual. This ruling provides a path for private individuals to seek redress for severe distress caused by a sustained campaign of harassment, separating the tortious conduct from the protected speech elements of a protest.
