Opinion ID: 1243775
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: under the facts, reasonable persons may disagree on the character of the driver's conduct and on the extent of the husband's distress. therefore, these issues must be submitted to the jury.

Text: The husband asserts that the facts here are so egregious that the issue of intentional infliction of emotional distress, also known as the tort of outrage, should be submitted to a jury. [22] The driver and Hartford argue that Page's negligent conduct is insufficient to support submitting the issue to the jury. Unlike the negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress is an independent tort. [23] Damages for the intentional infliction of emotional distress or the tort of outrage, may be awarded for bodily injury when one who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another. [24] In Breeden v. League Serv. Corp., 575 P.2d 1374, 1377 (Okla.1978), we established the role of the trial court and the jury in tort actions involving emotional distress. We said: The court, in the first instance, must determine whether the defendant's conduct may reasonably be regarded so extreme and outrageous as to permit recovery or whether it is necessarily so. Where, under the facts before the court, reasonable persons may differ, it is for the jury, subject to the control of the court, to determine whether the conduct in any given case has been significantly extreme and outrageous to result in liability. Likewise, it is for the court to determine, in the first instance, whether based upon the evidence presented, severe emotional distress can be found. It is for the jury to determine whether, on the evidence, severe emotional distress in fact existed. (Emphasis in original. Footnotes omitted.) In response to a motion for partial summary judgment, the trial court determined that no cause of action existed on the issue of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Because the motion was sustained on the finding that no cause of action existed, the facts of the case were not weighed to decide whether a jury might find the driver's conduct outrageous. [25] The trial judge did not find that the husband had not suffered severe emotional distress. Rather, he granted partial summary judgment on the assumption that because the husband was a bystander, no cause of action existed for his injuries. Even when basic facts are undisputed, motions for summary judgment should be denied, if under the evidence, reasonable persons might reach different inferences or conclusions from the undisputed facts. Summary judgment should be granted only when the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, admissions or other evidentiary materials establish that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. [26] We are convinced that the driver's actions at the time of the accident may be sufficient to cause reasonable persons in the community to find his conduct so extreme and outrageous that recovery should be allowed. [27] The husband presented evidentiary materials to support a finding that he has indeed suffered severe emotional distress arising from seeing his wife's suffering. [28] We find that because, under the facts, reasonable persons may disagree on the character of the driver's conduct and on the extent of the husband's distress, these issues must be submitted for jury determination.