Court Opinion

ID: 9762764
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:30:42.66128+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:37.334923
License: Public Domain

AHRENS, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I believe the trial court correctly found that plaintiffs petition did not state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
In Pretsky v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 396 S.W.2d 566 (Mo.1965), our Supreme Court adopted Section 46 of the Restatement of Torts. Under the restatement it is not enough that:
the defendant has acted with an intent which is tortious or even criminal, or that he has intended to inflict emotional distress, or even that his conduct has been characterized by ‘malice,’ or a degree of aggravation which would entitle the plaintiff to punitive damages for another tort. Liability has been found only where the conduct has 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.
Pretsky, 396 S.W.2d at 568-69; Restatement (Second) of ToRts Sec. 46 cmt. d.
In my opinion, plaintiffs petition does not meet this standard. While I do not condone the type of behavior alleged in plaintiffs petition, I do not find the behavior 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.
I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.