Court Opinion

ID: 9514906
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:52:26.558373+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:22.469489
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(concurring in part & dissenting in part).
[¶ 36.] I concur with the majority opinion in every respect except for its treatment of issue 1. In determining if the directed verdict for the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was appropriately granted, the majority opinion fails to utilize the proper standard of review and therefore, almost automatically, reaches the wrong result.
[¶ 37.] In Hayes I, we remanded summary judgment on this identical issue. In doing so, we stated:
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Hayes, placing him on emergency call 24 hours a day seven days a week, mistreating his patients, manipulation of his mail, tampering with his patient charts and singling him out for review before the Clinical Monitoring Committee could be considered extreme or outrageous. We find Hayes did present sufficient evidence so reasonable minds could differ. Therefore, as to this issue, this is ultimately a factual question for the jury.
I agree with the majority opinion that overcoming a summary judgment is not identical to meeting a motion for a directed verdict. Yet, they are more similar than the majority opinion acknowledges. The majority opinion states that the trial court did not err in finding that reasonable minds could not have differed as to the evidence offered at the directed verdict stage. However, both the trial court and the majority opinion infect their reasoning by failing to appreciate the other aspects of the proper standard of review for a directed verdict. We have recently reiterated that standard:
A motion for a directed verdict under SDCL 15-6-50(a) questions the legal sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a verdict against the moving party. Upon such a motion, the trial court must determine whether there is any substantial evidence to sustain the action. The evidence must be accepted which is most favorable to the nonmoving party and the trial court must indulge all legitimate inferences therefrom in his favor. If sufficient evidence exists so that reasonable minds could differ, a directed verdict is not appropriate.
Estate of Holan, 2001 SD 6, ¶ 9, 621 N.W.2d 588, 590.
[¶ 38.] Instead of viewing the facts, as we similarly did in Hayes I, “in the light most favorable to Hayes” the majority opinion ignores the requirements that we: 1.) accept the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party; 2.) indulge all legitimate inferences; and 3.) determine whether substantial evidence exists to sustain the action. Nothing more than lip service is paid to these three requirements in the majority opinion. We should specifically reject the majority opinion’s analysis to the extent it defeats the proper standard of review. A view of the evidence in the proper light requires us to find, as we did in Hayes I, that “this is ultimately a factual question for the jury.”
[¶ 39.] As to the initial question whether the conduct was extreme and outrageous, I would remind the Court that intentional infliction of emotional distress also includes reckless conduct resulting in emotional distress. Petersen v. Sioux Valley Hospital Ass’n, 491 N.W.2d 467, 469 (S.D.1992). The facts in Hayes I, which we recognized “could be considered extreme or outrageous” to defeat summary *749judgment, were supported sufficiently and the question should have gone to a jury and not dealt with by directed verdict. I would also submit that the law of the case doctrine requires us to recognize that these facts, after support was offered for them-at trial, “could be considered extreme or outrageous.” See First Western Bank, Sturgis v. Livestock Yards. Co., 466 N.W.2d 853, 858 (S.D.1991) (stating that a question decided on a former appeal becomes the law of the case). As the majority opinion recognizes in dealing with a separate issue, “[t]hat doctrine is binding on the trial court.”
[¶ 40.] For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
[¶ 41.] KONENKAMP, Justice, joins this special writing.