Opinion ID: 2598750
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress/Proof of Severity

Text: [¶ 38] In their third cause of action, the parents alleged the grandparents and neighbors had, individually and in conspiracy with one another, subjected them to severe emotional harm by their outrageous conduct. The district court granted summary judgment holding there was no evidence the parents' emotional distress was severe and they failed in their burden to establish a genuine issue of material fact. On appeal, the parents contend the district court dismissed their allegations because they did not seek psychological care or submit expert testimony to prove the severity of their injuries. This portrayal of the district court's action is inaccurate. The district court actually concluded: 8. In order to make a prima facie showing of intentional infliction of emotional distress the [parents] must show severe emotional distress. The [parents] have asserted emotional distress but have no evidence that such distress is severe. There is no evidence that [they] have sought professional help, only that they are pained by these events. A party moving for summary judgment carries the burden of dispelling the existence of material fact thereby shifting the burden to the nonmoving party to produce evidence raising a genuine question of material fact. The record contains only bald statements that they have suffered severe emotional distress with no supporting evidence. Therefore, Count II[I] of the amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice. [¶ 39] This court recognized intentional infliction of emotional distress as a cause of action in Leithead v. American Colloid Company, 721 P.2d 1059, 1065-67 (Wyo.1986), which explained: Section 46 of the Restatement, Second, Torts (1965), places several limits on the action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. It provides: Outrageous Conduct Causing Severe Emotional Distress (1) One who by extreme and 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 such bodily harm. Outrageous conduct is defined in comment d of the Restatement as conduct which goes beyond all possible bounds of decency, is regarded as atrocious, and is utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Severe emotional distress is defined in comment j as distress which is so severe that no reasonable man could be expected to endure it. .... Comment h to § 46 of the Restatement, Second, Torts (1965) states: Court and jury. It is for the court to determine, in the first instance, whether the defendant's conduct may reasonably be regarded as so extreme and outrageous as to permit recovery, or whether it is necessarily so. Where reasonable men may differ, it is for the jury, subject to the control of the court, to determine whether, in the particular case, the conduct has been sufficiently extreme and outrageous to result in liability. .... ... The actor is never liable ... where he has done no more than to insist upon his legal rights in a permissible way, even though he is well aware that such insistence is certain to cause emotional distress. Restatement, Second, Torts § 46, comment g. .... .... ... Comment j of § 46 of the Restatement, Second, Torts states: .... It is for the court to determine whether on the evidence severe emotional distress can be found; it is for the jury to determine whether, on the evidence, it has in fact existed. See also Worley v. Wyoming Bottling Company, Inc., 1 P.3d 615, 628 (Wyo.2000). The father's affidavit provides the only evidence of the severity, and he simply maintains they experienced uncomfortable and unpleasant feelings of various descriptions. [17] There is no evidence of the impact of this alleged distress on their lives such as missed work, inability to sleep or engage in hobbies and activities previously enjoyed, diminished ability to socialize or handle the necessary functions of everyday life, or memory loss. Certainly, the need for professional counseling could be evidence of the severity of the emotional distress, but it is not a required element. Contrary to the parents' representation, the district court did not find their proof failed because they did not seek treatment from mental health professionals. Instead, the court found the parents' statements that they experienced offensive feelings and emotions without further evidence of the effect on their lives were insufficient to establish a prima facie case of severe emotional distress. This decision is squarely within the district court's gatekeeping function, and we affirm.