Opinion ID: 2555926
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Intentional or Reckless Acts

Text: [¶ 17] Huber argues that the court failed to analyze whether his conduct was intentional or reckless and that the evidence was insufficient to establish that Huber intentionally or recklessly caused Lyman's emotional distress. He further argues that his self-directed outbursts and the physical condition of the house do not constitute intentional or reckless conduct and that such conduct was the product of certain compulsions. [¶ 18] [A] person acts intentionally if [the person] subjectively wants or subjectively foresees that harm to another will almost certainly result from [the person's] actions. Id. ¶ 12, 784 A.2d at 23 (quotation marks omitted). A person acts recklessly if [the person] knows or should know that [the person's] conduct creates an unreasonable risk of harm to another person and the unreasonableness of [the person's] actions exceeds negligence. Id. ¶ 13, 784 A.2d at 23. [¶ 19] Here, because neither party filed a motion for additional findings of fact pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 52, we infer that the trial court found that Huber's conduct was intentional or reckless. [2] The record contains evidence of Huber's tirades, hurtful comments, and efforts to control Lyman's activities and to limit her contact with others, all of which may be consistent with intentional conduct. Thus, this evidence supports the trial court's inferred finding that Huber's conduct was intentional or reckless.