Court Opinion

ID: 9547475
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:47:52.735752+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:17:47.191133
License: Public Domain

Lockett, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part. I concur with the.majority that the appeal was timely filed. I dissent from the majority’s determination that there was insufficient evidence to find the defendant had committed the tort of outrage.
We all know that the court makes law. In fact, the tort of outrage was created by this court, not the legislature. We engaged in the common law tradition of creating a law to fit the needs and demands of our changing society.
When creating new law, we rely on judicial precedent, principles, standards, doctrines and tradition from our own and various other jurisdictions. Relying on such, we announced that one who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another is subject to liability for such emotional distress.
Once the new tort was created, this court awaited the return of the progeny from the trial courts. When the descendant returned, we were then required to apply the rules of appellate review to that case and determine whether or not under the law and facts the case was properly tried and submitted to the jury by the trial court.
Here the jury was instructed that it should consider whether the defendant was liable to the plaintiff by determining if the conduct of the defendant:
1. was extreme and outrageous;
*6702. was intentionally or recklessly inflicted upon the plaintiff;
3. caused severe emotional distress to the plaintiff.
To be extreme and outrageous, the conduct complained of 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. If a recitation of the facts to an average member of the community would arouse his resentment against the actor, then he should find defendant’s conduct to have been extreme and outrageous. Applying the law to the facts, the jury determined the defendant’s actions were outrageous.
The appellant claims that there was insufficient evidence for the jury to find it guilty of the tort of outrage. Under the scope of appellate review, when a jury verdict is attacked for insufficiency of the evidence, it is the appellate court’s duty to search the record and determine whether there is substantial competent evidence to support the verdict.
The majority correctly determined that Lyne had a legitimate interest in Neufeldt’s making the insufficient fund check good. The majority then determined that Lyne’s commission of a criminal offense in an effort to force Neufeldt to pay the insufficient fund check was not outrageous.
Lyne violated K.S.A. 21-4113(l)(b) when he telephoned Neufeldt’s business number to falsely advise that the sheriff had an arrest warrant due to the issuance of an insufficient fund check and was in the process of locating Neufeldt to arrest him. Lyne’s intent was to force Neufeldt to pay a creditor. If a crime had been committed by Neufeldt when he passed the check, Lyne cared not a whit. Lyne had no intention of informing the sheriff a possible crime had been committed. He was willing to hide that fact from the sheriff if Neufeldt would pay off the check.
Was Lyne’s conduct outrageous? Our legislature has stated that one may not willfully do certain acts that are prohibited because they are injurious to society. When one intentionally violates the criminal law in an effort to force another to do an act in order that he or his employer may profit, that conduct is outrageous.
The jury found Lyne’s acts to be outrageous. The majority reweighed the facts, found them insufficient, and determined *671such conduct is not outrageous, thereby denying the victims compensation for damages the jury determined they had sustained. I disagree.