Opinion ID: 1375369
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Necessity of Expert Testimony:

Text: Our current jurisprudence on the tort of outrage has its genesis in Harless v. First National Bank in Fairmont, 169 W.Va. 673, 289 S.E.2d 692 (1982). In syllabus point six of Harless, we stated as follows: `One who by extreme or outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another is subject to liability for such emotional distress, and if bodily harm to the other results from it, for bodily harm.' Syllabus pt. 6, Harless v. First National Bank in Fairmont, 169 W.Va. 673, 289 S.E.2d 692 (1982). Syl. pt. 1, Dzinglski v. Weirton Steel Corp., 191 W.Va. 278, 445 S.E.2d 219 (1994). This formulation of the cause of action is identical to that which is contained in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46(1) (1965). [10] For this reason, the jurisprudence and comments attached to § 46 have substantially influenced our subsequent development of this claim. For instance, we have made repeated reference in our prior cases, in whole or in part to comment (d), which states as follows: d. Extreme and outrageous conduct. The cases thus far decided have found liability only where the defendant's conduct has been extreme and outrageous. It has not been enough that the defendant has acted with an intent which is tortious or even criminal, or that he has intended to inflict emotional distress, or even that his conduct has been characterized by `malice,' or a degree of aggravation which would entitle the plaintiff to punitive damages for another tort. Liability has been found only where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Generally, the case is one in which the recitation of the facts to an average member of the community would arouse his resentment against the actor, and lead, him to exclaim, `Outrageous!' The liability clearly does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities. The rough edges of our society are still in need of a good, deal of filing down, and in the meantime plaintiffs must necessarily be expected and required to be hardened to a certain amount of rough language, and to occasional acts that are definitely inconsiderate and unkind. There is no occasion for the law to intervene in every case where some one's feelings are hurt. There must still be freedom to express an unflattering opinion, and some safety valve must be left through which irascible tempers may blow off relatively harmless steam. Id. (emphasis added); see Courtney v. Courtney, 190 W.Va. 126, 437 S.E.2d 436 (1993) ( Courtney II ) (quoting comment (j) concerning the nature of severe emotional distress); [11] Courtney v. Courtney, 186 W.Va. 597, 413 S.E.2d 418 (1991) ( Courtney I ); Kanawha Valley Power Co. v. Justice, 181 W.Va. 509, 383 S.E.2d 313 (1989). The reason that we have demanded such strict proof of unprecedented and extreme misconduct was perhaps best stated in Keyes v. Keyes, 182 W.Va. 802, 805, 392 S.E.2d 693, 696 (1990): Especially where no physical injury accompanies the wrong, the tort of outrage is a slippery beast, which can easily get out of hand without firm judicial oversight. [12] Id. The crux of Rite Aid's argument is that a plaintiff must adduce expert testimony to prove causation and severe emotional distress under the tort of outrage. Rite Aid's argument is based almost exclusively on an isolated quotation from our decision in Courtney II which provides as follows: However, where the claim is only one for severe emotional distress from outrageous conduct, the emotional distress forms the basis of the cause of action. To recover damages for a claim based solely on emotional distress, such emotional distress must not only be severe, but must manifest distinct psychological or mental patterns that are commonly recognized, by experts. In some instances, physical manifestations may occur. Id. at 130, 437 S.E.2d at 440 (emphasis added). [13] As an initial matter, one must recognize that Courtney II did not present the question addressed herein. Second, Rite Aid reads Courtney II in overbroad fashion and does not take into account our pre-existing, analogous case law. First, one must examine exactly what we were addressing in Courtney II. The only substantial assignment of error in Courtney II was that the circuit court had erroneously ruled that the statute of limitations barred the plaintiff's claims for assault and battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Id. at 133, 437 S.E.2d at 443. No issue was raised about proof for the tort of outrage, because the case was dismissed below as a matter of law on purely legal grounds. The above-cited quotation from Courtney II was meant to demonstrate the difference between a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress as opposed to the damages for emotional distress that one might recover as an adjunct to another substantive tort, such as assault and battery. Id. at 130, 437 S.E .2d at 440. We then used this analysis in an attempt to demonstrate that the tort of outrage seeks recovery for a personal injury, thus requiring resort to a two-year statute of limitations. Id. at 133, 437 S.E.2d at 443. The above-quoted language relied upon by Rite Aid was, at most, merely an attempt to illuminate the distinction. For that reason, it can only be considered as dicta. [14] Second, it becomes clear that Rite Aid's position is not well-taken when one examines our precedent dealing with the analogous area of proof for emotional distress as a damage element contained within another substantive tort. For instance, in Slack v. Kanawha County Housing & Redevelopment Authority, 188 W.Va. 144, 423 S.E.2d 547 (1992), the plaintiff asserted claims for invasion of privacy, retaliatory discharge, and civil conspiracy. The circuit court granted one of the defendants judgment notwithstanding the verdict as to $30,000 in emotional distress damages that were parasitic to plaintiff's substantive claim for invasion of privacy. The circuit court reasoned that the emotional distress damages could not stand because the evidence of such damages consisted solely of the plaintiff's testimony, uncorroborated by any medical or expert testimony. Id. at 151, 423 S.E.2d at 554. In reversing that ruling, we stated that [w]e have not required plaintiffs who have suffered emotional distress damages to buttress such claims by corroborative evidence at the peril of having their claims dismissed as a matter of law. Id. at 152, 423 S.E.2d at 555; see also, e.g., Mace v. Charleston Area Medical Ctr. Found., Inc., 188 W.Va. 57, 67, 422 S.E.2d 624, 634 (1992) (In spite of the admitted paucity of evidence of emotional distress ... [as an adjunct to a retaliatory discharge claim,] [w]e will not disturb the jury's award of $50,000.00 for emotional distress.); Criss v. Criss, 177 W.Va. 749, 751, 356 S.E.2d 620, 622 (1987) (Although the appellant's claim for damages for emotional distress ... [as an adjunct to a claim for assault and battery] would have been strengthened by supporting medical or psychological evidence, the testimony offered by the appellant and her grandmother was sufficient to raise issues for jury determination.) [15] If anything, then, our analogous existing case law indicates that expert testimony is not required in every case to prove the causation and severity elements for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Indeed, Harless itself, the genesis for this cause of action in West Virginia, fails to make mention of any such requirement. Restatement § 46(1) and its comments, upon which we have placed great reliance in the past, also omit any such mandate. In formulating our rule for expert testimony in the context of the tort of outrage, however, we feel compelled to examine authority from other jurisdictions. Our research has disclosed a split of authority. One line of authority suggests that expert testimony is rarely required for proof of intentional infliction of emotional distress. See, e.g., Richardson v. Fairbanks North Star Borough, 705 P.2d 454, 457 n. 6 (Alaska 1985) (Expert medical testimony may be the most effective method of demonstrating the existence of severe emotional distress, but it should not be the exclusive means of ascertaining a party's mental state.) This approach has garnered some support from the commentators. One of the seminal articles on the tort of outrage states that a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is much cheaper to bring than a negligence action since there is no need for experts either with respect to causation or extent of injury. Daniel Givelber, The Right to Minimum Social Decency and the Limits of Evenhandedness: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress by Outrageous Conduct, 82 Colum.L.Rev. 42, 51 (1982); see Angela M. Elsperger, Comment, DamagesIntentional Infliction of Emotional Distress in the Workplace: Defining Extreme and Outrageous Conduct in North Dakota's Job Description, 70 N.D.L.Rev. 187, 191 n. 43 (1994) (stating experts are not needed to show causation or extent of injury because the extremity and outrageousness of the conduct presumes damage). A second line of authority, however, requires expert testimony [16] in every case where the tort of outrage is alleged. See, e.g., Kazatsky v. King David Mem. Park, Inc., 515 Pa. 183, 197, 527 A.2d 988, 995 (1987) (stating that it is unwise and unnecessary to permit recovery to be predicated on an inference based on the defendant's `outrageousness' without expert medical confirmation that the plaintiff actually suffered the claimed distress). We think the first line of authority is better reasoned and more consistent with our jurisprudence and the Restatement. Like that authority, we do not adopt a bright-line rule that expert testimony is never required to prove the tort of outrage. Although expert testimony may be a helpful and effective method of proving emotional distress and its relationship to the act complained of, it is not always necessary. [17] A determination by the trial court as to whether a plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence absent expert testimony such that the jury from its own experience can evaluate the claim, its causal connection to the defendant's conduct and the damages flowing therefrom will not be disturbed unless it is an abuse of discretion. We note that this approach has found support among both the commentators and other jurisdictions. For instance, one commentator has stated as follows: If the evidence in a given case [asserting a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress] is such that the jurors, or judge, in a bench trial, can from their own experiences evaluate both the substance of the injury claimed and its probable relationship to the defendant's misconduct, the plaintiff may prove causation without the aid of expert testimony.... When prima facie proof of the fact of injury or causes involves matters beyond the competency of ordinary lay persons, expert witnesses must be employed. Marilyn Minzer et al., Damages in Tort Actions § 6.12[3], [4] (1989) (footnotes omitted); see McKnight v. Simpson's Beauty Supply, Inc., 86 N.C.App. 451, 454, 358 S.E.2d 107, 109 (1987) (Our holding is simply that the jury was capable of determining without the aid of a physician or psychiatrist whether plaintiff was shocked and upset following his abrupt, unexplained dismissal and whether such feelings were caused by defendant's conduct.); Chandler v. Denton, 741 P.2d 855, 867 (Okla.1987) (In most cases, jurors from their own experience are aware of the extent and character of the disagreeable emotions that may result from a defendant's outrageous conduct. Severe emotional distress may be shown either by physical manifestations of the distress or by subjective testimony.); Bennett v. City Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 549 P.2d 393, 399 (Okla.Ct.App. 1975) (If from their own experience, jurors are aware of the extent and character of the disagreeable emotions that may result from the defendant's conduct, then such is a matter of general knowledge.); Hackney v. Woodring, 424 Pa.Super. 96, 104, 622 A.2d 286, 290 (1993), rev'd, 539 Pa. 266, 652 A.2d 291 (1994) (The emotional reactions discussed in comment j to § 46 predate the advent of psychiatry and can readily be established without the testimony of one learned in that area of medical science.... While the average juror may not have personally experienced the extreme fright, humiliation, embarrassment and loss of self-esteem to which Hackney testified, these feelings are within the realm of common understanding which all jurors bring with them to the jury box.) [18] Further, as stated by the leading commentators, often the flagrancy and enormity of the defendant's misconduct adds especial weight to the plaintiff's claim, and is in itself an important guarantee that the mental disturbance which follows is serious and not feigned. Keeton et al., supra § 12 at 57 and 56 (stating also that the elimination of trivialities calls for nothing more than the same common sense which has distinguished serious from trifling injuries in other fields of the law); Restatement, supra § 46 cmt. j (stating that in many cases the extreme and outrageous character of the defendant's conduct is in itself important evidence that the distress has existed). [19] Certainly this analysis does not preclude a defendant from having an expert examine the plaintiff and testify to the results and conclusions concerning the examination. Indeed, beyond cross-examination, this type of testimony is the principal defensive weapon to counter the plaintiff's testimony. Were we to adopt a different approach, a defendant would be left in the difficult position of attempting to counter a plaintiff's subjective testimony on causation and severity of the distress. The expert must not, however, be permitted to usurp the province of the jury on these two elements, and the circuit court should so instruct the panel and limit the testimony where necessary. We have no doubt that a properly instructed jury can sort out the competing testimony. In applying these principles to the instant case, we conclude that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the nature of the plaintiffs' claim and their evidence in support thereof was such that the jury could properly evaluate it without expert testimony. The jury accepted the evidence which demonstrated that the Appellees, inter alia, (1) were publicly accused of criminal wrongdoing, (2) endured a lengthy, humiliating public search of their persons and belongings, (3) were repeatedly labeled as thieves, and (4) were ridiculed by onlooking customers. We think the emotions and manifestations that they experienced as a result were well within the common understanding of the average juror and were properly submitted to the panel. Accordingly, an expert witness' direct or supplementary testimony on behalf of the Appellees to prove causation or severity of distress in these circumstances was not required. We thus discern no error from the Appellees' failure to adduce such testimony.