Opinion ID: 567581
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Assault, Battery, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Text: 5 D.C.Code § 12-301 states in pertinent part: 6 Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, actions for the following purposes may not be brought after the expiration of the period specified below from the time the right to maintain the action accrues: 7 . . . . . 8 (4) for libel, slander, assault, battery, mayhem, wounding, malicious prosecution, false arrest or false imprisonment--1 year; 9 . . . . . 10 (8) for which a limitation is not otherwise specially prescribed--3 years. 11 Hunter's claim for assault and battery is thus clearly barred by the one-year statute of limitations in § 12-301(4). As for his claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, Hunter asserts that the one-year limitation of § 12-301(4) does not apply--thereby implying that the three-year residual statute of limitations in § 12-301(8) governs--while the District flatly asserts that § 12-301(4) does apply. Neither side cites any precedent or offers any argument in support of its position. 12 In fact, a recent decision of the D.C. Court of Appeals indicates that both parties err in suggesting that any single statute of limitations governs all claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress in the District. In Saunders v. Nemati, 580 A.2d 660 (D.C.1990), the court held that an independent action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, not intertwined with any of the causes of action for which a period of limitation is specifically provided in the other provisions of section 12-301, is governed by the general residuary three-year limitation of section 12-301(8). Id. at 665. The wrongful act asserted in Saunders was extremely outrageous and abusive language to plaintiff which was calculated to and did cause Plaintiff extreme emotional distress. Id. at 663 n. 6. In holding that this independent tort is governed by the residual statute of limitations, the court distinguished--and apparently approved application of the one-year statute of limitations to--cases in which the wrongful act alleged is assault, battery, or libel. See id. at 661-63, citing Hanoch Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic, 517 F.Supp. 542 (D.D.C.1981); Thomas v. News World Communications, 681 F.Supp. 55, 73 (D.D.C.1988); de la Croix de Lafayette v. de la Croix de Lafayette, 117 Daily Wash.L.Rptr. 2133, 2138 (D.C.Super.Ct. Aug. 14, 1989). 13 Hunter's complaint did not allege any facts suggesting that the defendants intentionally caused him emotional distress by conduct independent of the alleged assault and battery. Therefore, the one-year statute of limitations bars this claim, as the district court held.