Court Opinion

ID: 9693341
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:38:01.631364+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:45.237278
License: Public Domain

White, J.,
dissenting.
Among the most treasured of the rights a citizen possesses is the right to privacy, the right to be left alone. The accidental intrusions on one’s right to be left alone necessitated by the complications of an urbanized society are burden enough to bear by any reasonably sensitive person. The deliberate harassing intrusions, repeated frequently and for a continued period, are savage, uncivilized, and outrageous. I reject outright the conclusion that the conduct here is not sufficiently horrid to be classified as outrageous. The law must and should provide protection from this absurd conduct and not be seen to stand helplessly by, wringing its hands. Often the most effective method of teaching good manners is the money judgment.
I also reject the implication that recovery cannot be had in the absence of expert testimony by mental health personnel. The ability to withstand outrageous conduct, that might in another person cause physical and mental collapse, ought not to be a reason to bar recovery. The conduct is the same; the mental and physical conditions of the victims may vary. The conclusion that expert evidence of disability is required is not supported by LaSalle Extension University v. Fogarty, 126 Neb. 457, 253 N.W. 424 (1934).
The jury was properly instructed. I would leave its decision, that the plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress, undisturbed and affirm this judgment.
Krivosha, C.J., joins in this dissent.