Opinion ID: 754757
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: infliction of emotional distress or outrageous conduct

Text: 50 To sustain a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress or outrageous conduct in Tennessee, the appellants must show 51 (1) the conduct of the defendants has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to be beyond the pale of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society, and (2) the conduct results in serious mental injury. 52 Swallows v. Western Elec. Co., 543 S.W.2d 581, 582 (Tenn.1976). The Supreme Court of Tennessee elaborated on this standard in Goldfarb v. Baker, 547 S.W.2d 567, 569 (Tenn.1977), stating: 53 that the defendant's conduct must be so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to be beyond the pale of decency and that it must have caused serious mental injury to the plaintiff. The conduct must be atrocious, utterly intolerable, and beyond all bounds of decency. 54 Id. 55 The appellants argue that if this court determines their negligent misrepresentation count may proceed to trial, we must allow their emotional distress and outrageous conduct claim to proceed to trial because [o]nly a jury can analyze this question of fact. Appellants' Br. at 30-31. The Supreme Court of Tennessee, however, has clearly held that the court has the burden of determining, in the first instance, whether [a defendant's] conduct may reasonably be regarded as so extreme and outrageous as to permit recovery. Swallows, 543 S.W.2d at 583 (discussing dismissal on the pleadings); see also Claiborne v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 718 F.Supp. 1319, 1322 (E.D.Tenn.1989) (discussing dismissal on summary judgment). 56 The appellants' evidence provides no support for their claim that the actions, or failure to act, by any of the defendants in this case other than possibly Don Williams and his now-deceased wife Alice, rise to the level of outrageousness required to support a claim of infliction of emotional distress or outrageous conduct in Tennessee. The mere fact that plaintiffs can produce evidence to survive a motion for summary judgment on a claim of negligent misrepresentation does not automatically save their emotional distress claim. The judgment of the district court on this count is affirmed. 57 The appellants also raised a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress in their original complaint. The appellants have made no specific mention of this claim in their appeal to this court or in their motion in opposition to summary judgment in the district court. Even if the appellants have not waived this claim on appeal, they cannot prevail. To sustain a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress in Tennessee, a plaintiff must first present material evidence sufficient to support a general claim of negligence. See Camper v. Minor, 915 S.W.2d 437, 446 (Tenn.1996). In addition, to protect against trivial or fraudulent actions, Tennessee allows for recovery only for 'serious' or 'severe' emotional injur[ies]. Id. A 'serious' or 'severe' emotional injury occurs where a reasonable person, normally constituted, would be unable to adequately cope with the mental stress engendered by the circumstances of the case. Id. (quotations omitted). The appellants have not presented any material evidence suggesting that injury, if proximately caused by the appellees' actions, was so severe as to cause a reasonable person to be unable adequately to cope with the mental stress. For this reason, the dismissal of the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim is affirmed.