Opinion ID: 885270
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Negligent and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Text: ¶ 51 The Plaintiffs assert that the District Court erred when it dismissed their claims for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. While the Plaintiffs acknowledge that the severity of the alleged emotional distress is generally a threshold determination to be made by the court pursuant to Sacco v. High Country Independent Press, Inc., 271 Mont. 209, 896 P.2d 411 (1995), the Plaintiffs contend that the District Court disregarded testimony that the Mays suffered serious financial hardship and stress related to their financial difficulties. ¶ 52 The Defendants assert that, in light of the undisputed facts that the Mays have not listed any healthcare professional to testify to their mental distress, the stress has not prevented Mr. May from pursuing his love of fishing, and Marilyn May's testimony that although the transaction was stressful, neither she nor her husband ever felt it necessary to seek medical help, the District Court was correct when it dismissed the claims for emotional distress by summary judgment. ¶ 53 We have previously held that an independent cause of action for infliction of emotional distress will arise under circumstances where serious or severe emotional distress to the plaintiff was the reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's negligent or intentional act or omission. See Sacco, 271 Mont. at 238, 896 P.2d at 429. ¶ 54 Recently, in Maloney v. Home and Investment Center, Inc., 298 Mont. 213, 994 P.2d 1124, 2000 MT 34 (2000),, we discussed the serious or severe requirement for actionable emotional distress. In Maloney, we discussed the standard for determining serious or severe as set forth by the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 comment j: [Emotional distress] includes all highly unpleasant mental reactions, such as fright, horror, grief, shame, humiliation, embarrassment, anger, chagrin, disappointment, worry and nausea. It is only where it is extreme that the liability arises. Complete emotional tranquility is seldom attainable in this world, and some degree of transient and trivial emotional distress is a part of the price of living among people. The law intervenes only where the distress inflicted is so severe that no reasonable [person] could be expected to endure it. The intensity and the duration of the distress are factors to be considered in determining its severity. Maloney, ¶ 62. ¶ 55 We also stated in Maloney that [m]easuring this element requires a careful consideration of the circumstances under which the infliction occurs, and the party relationships involved, in order to determine when and where a reasonable person should or should not have to endure certain kinds of emotional distress. Maloney, ¶ 63. Moreover, we recognized that, [a]lthough this Court has never directly held so, emotional distress damages resulting from purely economic loss in non-contractual matters are rarely compensated .... and this notion stems from the fact that in the world of business transactions most all emotional distress is of the transient and trivial variety. Maloney, ¶ 66. ¶ 56 Our review of the record reveals that the evidence of emotional distress presented to the District Court in opposition to the Defendants' motion for summary judgment was minimal, at best. Mrs. May testified to the following in her deposition: Q. Has the way this transaction transpired or unfolded been stressful for you? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Has it been stressful to the point where you have sought medical help? A. No. Q. Has it been stressful for your husband? A. Yes. Q. Has it been stressful to the point where he sought medical help? A. No. Q. Has it interfered with his fishing? A. Oh, absolutely. Q. And how's that? A. You have to spend your time, you know, at the station. You know, you have no free time. You've got to be there, and you've got a lot of work to do, you've got a lot of phone calls. There were a lot of phone calls made from our home late in the evening because of trying to contact people who weren't available through the day. So it went home with us as well as at work. ¶ 57 While there is no requirement that a plaintiff present expert or medical testimony of emotional distress, some evidence of serious or severe emotional distress is necessary to survive a motion for summary judgment. Here, Mrs. May's testimony that extra work was required of the Mays as a result of the toxic liability and gas tank removal is not sufficient evidence of serious or severe emotional distress to preclude summary judgment. Accordingly, we conclude that the District Court did not err when it dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims for negligent and intentional emotional distress.