Zalnis v. Thoroughbred Datsun Car Co.
645 P.2d 292 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Conduct may be deemed extreme and outrageous if an actor, in a position of actual or apparent authority, harasses and intimidates another person to the point of causing severe emotional distress, especially when the actor knows the other person is peculiarly susceptible to such distress.
Facts:
- In January 1978, Christiane Zalnis purchased a Datsun automobile from salesperson Linnie Cade at Thoroughbred Datsun.
- Several days later, Thoroughbred's president, Trosper, discovered that Cade's miscalculation resulted in the car being sold at a loss of approximately $1,000.
- Trosper instructed his staff to rectify the loss by either demanding more money from Zalnis, retrieving the car, or having Cade pay the difference.
- Another employee, Anthony, telephoned Zalnis and falsely told her the car was being recalled to lure her back to the dealership.
- When Zalnis arrived, her car was taken from her against her will after she refused to surrender it without a work order.
- Over the next few hours, Anthony allegedly called Zalnis a "French whore," yelled at her, followed her, grabbed her arm threateningly, and continually intimidated her.
- Trosper knew Zalnis was peculiarly susceptible to emotional distress, having told his staff she was "crazy" and had watched her husband kill himself.
- During a phone call with Zalnis's attorney, Trosper made a racially and sexually derogatory remark about Zalnis and the salesman.
Procedural Posture:
- Christiane Zalnis filed a complaint in a Colorado trial court against Thoroughbred Datsun, Trosper, and Anthony.
- The complaint included separate claims for outrageous conduct and slander per se.
- Defendants Thoroughbred Datsun and Trosper filed a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the outrageous conduct claim.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion, dismissing the outrageous conduct claim before trial.
- Zalnis, as appellant, appealed the trial court's grant of partial summary judgment to the Colorado Court of Appeals.
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 car dealership's conduct, which includes luring a customer back under false pretenses, dispossessing her of her car, and subjecting her to verbal abuse and physical intimidation, all while knowing of her particular emotional vulnerability, constitute 'outrageous conduct' sufficient for a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress?
Opinions:
Majority - Kelly, J.
Yes. The defendants' actions could be found by a reasonable jury to constitute outrageous conduct. The tort of outrageous conduct, as defined by the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46, applies to one who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress. Here, the defendants' behavior went beyond "mere insults, indignities, [and] threats" because they dispossessed Zalnis of her car and repeatedly harassed her. This conduct constituted an abuse of their position of authority, and it was not privileged because the recall was a pretext to avoid a bad bargain. Crucially, the outrageous character of conduct can arise from the actor's knowledge that the other person is peculiarly susceptible to emotional distress. Trosper knew of Zalnis's past trauma, and this knowledge exacerbated the severity of the conduct. Evaluating the totality of the conduct, reasonable people could differ on whether it was outrageous, making summary judgment for the defendants improper.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the tort of outrageous conduct in Colorado, particularly emphasizing two key factors that can elevate otherwise impermissible conduct to the level of "extreme and outrageous." First, it highlights that an abuse of a position of authority, such as a business using a pretext to dispossess a customer of their property, is a significant consideration. Second, and more importantly, the decision establishes that a defendant's knowledge of a plaintiff's peculiar emotional vulnerability can be a critical factor in the outrageousness analysis. This precedent instructs lower courts to consider the totality of the circumstances, including the defendant's state of mind and knowledge, rather than just isolated incidents or insults, when determining if a claim can proceed to a jury.
Unlock the full brief for Zalnis v. Thoroughbred Datsun Car Co.