Opinion ID: 2593756
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Superior Court Properly Dismissed Mitchell's Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and Punitive Damage Claims.

Text: In Richardson v. Fairbanks North Star Borough , we recognized a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress for the intentional or reckless killing of a pet animal. [4] For such claims, the trial court must make a threshold determination whether the severity of the emotional distress and the conduct of the offending party warrant a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. [5] The challenged conduct must have been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. [6] We also recognized in Richardson that a plaintiff could recover punitive damages for the killing of a pet. [7] We concluded that the offensive conduct warranting punitive damages is similar to the conduct that would sustain an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. [8] The plaintiff must produce evidence that the defendant's conduct was outrageous, such as evidence that the acts were performed with malice, bad motive, or reckless indifference to the rights or interests of another. [9] Punitive damage claims also require the trial court to make a threshold determination whether there is evidence that gives rise to an inference of actual malice or conduct sufficiently outrageous to be deemed equivalent to actual malice. [10] Here, the superior court granted summary judgment on Mitchell's claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, concluding, after considering the evidence in the light most favorable to Mitchell, that Heinrichs's conduct did not go beyond all bounds of decency. Although the superior court conceded that Heinrichs might have acted in a less drastic manner to the intruder on her property, it concluded that the defendant's conduct, even when considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, [was] not `outrageous.' The superior court also rejected Mitchell's claim for punitive damages, determining that Heinrichs had not acted in a malicious or recklessly indifferent manner. In light of the dog's increasingly bold behavior and the threat to the livestock, the trial court concluded that Heinrichs's shooting of the dog was not an outrageous, malicious, or utterly intolerable act. Oregon courts have denied punitive damages in two cases in which a person shot and killed a dog that was harassing or threatening livestock. [11] Moreover, under the Fairbanks North Star Borough Code of Ordinances, the intentional killing of an animal is justified if the person acted in reasonable defense of person or property. [12] Because Mitchell presented no material facts to dispute that Heinrichs acted in a manner justified under the community standards embodied in the municipal ordinance, the superior court did not abuse its discretion in making the threshold finding that Heinrichs's conduct did not support a prima facie case of either intentional infliction of emotional distress or punitive damages.