Court Opinion

ID: 9401537
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-13 15:05:57.474675+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:53.360644
License: Public Domain

2023 IL App (2d) 220197
                                  No. 2-22-0197
                            Opinion filed June 13, 2023
______________________________________________________________________________

                                          IN THE

                            APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

                              SECOND DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________________

MATTHEW KORNICK,                       ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
                                       ) of Lake County.
      Plaintiff and Counterdefendant-  )
      Appellee,                        )
                                       )
v.                                     ) No. 18-L-356
                                       )
DRU GOODMAN,                           )
                                       ) Honorable
      Defendant and Counterplaintiff-. ) Charles W. Smith,
      Appellant,                       ) Judge, Presiding.
______________________________________________________________________________

       JUSTICE SCHOSTOK delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
       Presiding Justice McLaren and Justice Hutchinson concurred in the judgment and opinion.

                                         OPINION

¶1     Dru Goodman appeals the order of the circuit court of Lake County granting summary

judgment in favor of Matthew Kornick on Goodman’s counterclaim for intentional infliction of

emotional distress based on Kornick’s extreme and outrageous conduct knowingly directed at

Goodman’s minor child. For the following reasons, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and

remand for additional proceedings.

¶2                                   I. BACKGROUND

¶3     The parties’ adversarial relationship began in 2013 when Dru Goodman learned that

Matthew Kornick, was having an affair with Goodman’s wife of 17 years, Stacy. Upon learning
2023 IL App (2d) 220197

of the affair Goodman began having Stacy surveilled. From September 2013 to April 2016,

Goodman spent more than $1.295 million to have someone follow, videotape, and photograph

Stacy for approximately 12 hours per day at her home, on vacation, and in public places.

¶4     In March 2017, Stacy filed a verified petition for an order of protection against Goodman,

pursuant to the Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986 (750 ILCS 60/1 et seq. (West 2016)). She

sought to end Goodman’s surveillance of her. Following a hearing, the trial court granted a two-

year order of protection, finding that Goodman’s surveillance of Stacy was obsessive and

“completely and utterly inappropriate.” In July 2017, Goodman and Stacy’s marriage was

dissolved.

¶5     In July 2018, Kornick brought against Goodman a claim for intrusion upon seclusion.

Kornick’s claim asserted that, because Goodman was extensively surveilling Stacy, he was

surveilling Kornick as well. Two months later, Goodman filed a five-count counterclaim. The one

count relevant to this appeal is a counterclaim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. In

that claim, Goodman alleged that he had sustained severe emotional distress after viewing vile and

vulgar text messages that Kornick had sent to Goodman’s 13-year-old son C.S., who has features

of autism spectrum disorder.

¶6     In January 2021, the trial court granted Kornick’s motion to voluntarily dismiss his

complaint, leaving Goodman’s counterclaim as the sole pending matter.

¶7     On September 29, 2021, Kornick filed a motion for summary judgment. As to the claim

for emotional distress, Kornick argued that there was no evidence that Kornick intended Goodman

to suffer any emotional distress and there was no evidence that Goodman’s reading of the text

messages caused him any emotional distress. In support, he pointed to his own deposition

testimony that he meant “no harm” with the texts that he sent and that they were part of a “friendly

                                               -2-
2023 IL App (2d) 220197

relationship” that he had with C.S. Kornick testified that he stopped sending similar text messages

“immediately” after Goodman expressed displeasure with the text messages.

¶8     Goodman’s response to Kornick’s motion for summary judgment included a declaration

stating that, over a one-year period from 2017 to 2018, Kornick had repeatedly sent sexually

explicit, vulgar, racist, sexist, and homophobic text messages to C.S. These messages were sent to

a smartphone that Goodman had purchased for his son. Goodman stated that he became “physically

sickened” upon discovering these texts, as he did not know how he could stop Kornick and protect

his kids. Because his distress was so severe, he lost sleep and went to the Riverwoods Police

Department, who involved the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services in the matter.

Goodman consulted with two doctors and informed them that he was using prescription

medications due to the emotional reactions he had to the text messages.

¶9     On May 4, 2022, following a hearing, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor

of Kornick. As to the emotional distress count, the trial court found that Goodman could not

maintain an action for emotional distress, because he could not establish that Kornick intended

that he see the text messages and suffer emotional distress. Goodman thereafter filed a timely

notice of appeal.

¶ 10                                      II. ANALYSIS

¶ 11   On appeal, Goodman argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in

favor of Kornick, because the trial court’s ruling ignored the familial relationship between

Goodman and his son. Goodman insists that, as the father of the recipient of the outrageous

conduct, he can recover for the emotional distress that Kornick caused him.

¶ 12   Summary judgment is appropriate where, when viewed in the light most favorable to the

nonmoving party, the pleadings, depositions, admissions, and affidavits on file reveal that there is

                                               -3-
2023 IL App (2d) 220197

no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of

law. Hall v. Henn, 208 Ill. 2d 325, 328 (2003). When reviewing a trial court’s award or denial of

summary judgment, we must construe the pleadings, depositions, admissions, exhibits, and

affidavits strictly against the moving party and liberally in favor of the nonmoving party. Pyne v.

Witmer, 129 Ill. 2d 351, 358 (1989). The standard of review for the entry of summary judgment is

de novo. Clausen v. Carroll, 291 Ill. App. 3d 530, 536 (1997).

¶ 13   In determining the elements of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress, our

courts have relied on the requirements set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 (1965)

(hereinafter Restatement). Schweihs v. Chase Home Finance, LLC, 2016 IL 120041, ¶¶ 49-52.

Those requirements provide that a party must allege facts to establish that (1) the defendant’s

conduct was extreme and outrageous, (2) the defendant either intended that his conduct should

inflict severe emotional distress or knew that there was a high probability that his conduct would

cause severe emotional distress, and (3) the defendant’s conduct in fact caused severe emotional

distress. Doe v. Calumet City, 161 Ill. 2d 374, 392 (1994).

¶ 14   The first element of the tort—extreme and outrageous conduct—is not at issue in this case.

The trial court found that a question of fact exists as to whether Kornick’s conduct rose to the level

of outrageousness necessary to support a claim for emotional distress. Kornick does not dispute

that finding. We therefore consider only whether the other two elements are present. As to the

second element, intent, we first address whether Kornick must have intended harm to Goodman

himself. The Restatement recognizes that in some instances a plaintiff can bring an intentional

infliction of emotional distress action based on conduct directed at a third person. Section 46(2) of

the Restatement provides:

                                                -4-
2023 IL App (2d) 220197

       “Where [outrageous] conduct is directed at a third person, the actor is subject to liability if

       he intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress

                       (a) to a member of such person’s immediate family who is present at the

               time, whether or not such distress results in bodily harm, or

                       (b) to any other person who is present at the time, if such distress results in

               bodily harm.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46(2), at 72 (1965).

See Green v. Chicago Tribune. Co., 286 Ill. App. 3d 1, 13-14 (1996). Under this provision, Kornick

can be held liable for his text messages to C.S. if he intentionally or recklessly caused severe

emotional distress to Goodman and if Goodman was “present at the time” of Kornick’s conduct.

¶ 15   Although the Restatement indicates that the person who is harmed by the outrageous

conduct must be present when the conduct occurs, that provision is not always interpreted strictly.

See Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 420 n.19 (2002) (“there is room to argue for an

exception to presence in some situations” when construing section 46); Nancy P. v. D’Amato, 517

N.E.2d 824, 826 (Mass. 1988) (family member does not need to be present when outrageous

conduct occurs but rather must have “substantially contemporaneous knowledge of the outrageous

conduct”).

¶ 16   Goodman argues that this court’s decision in Rekosh v. Parks, 316 Ill. App. 3d 58 (2000),

abrogated on other grounds, Cochran v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., 2017 IL 121200,

should control the outcome of this case. In Rekosh, the decedent’s adult sons sued their father’s

ex-wife and a funeral home, alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress. Specifically, the

plaintiffs alleged that, after the decedent’s death, the ex-wife met with agents of the funeral home,

falsely stated that she was the decedent’s spouse, and asked to have his remains cremated and

given to her. The funeral home performed the cremation and gave the ashes to the ex-wife (who

                                                -5-
2023 IL App (2d) 220197

dumped them in her backyard without notifying plaintiffs), despite not receiving a proper

cremation authorization form. According to the allegations, the funeral home became aware that

the ex-wife was not the decedent’s current spouse and “witnessed” the signature of one of the sons

on the authorization form even though the son was not there. Rekosh, 316 Ill. App. 3d at 61-63.

¶ 17   On the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, we concluded that the

plaintiffs had stated a claim against both defendants for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Id. at 65 (“We believe that a reasonable person who enjoyed a warm, affectionate, and natural

relationship with a parent would resent someone who, upon that parent’s death, by means of a

forgery, illegally cremated the body and disposed of the remains in a backyard without his

knowledge or consent.”). As to the funeral home, this court stated that “[a] funeral home’s

facilitation of a cremation that is not legally authorized, knowing that there are next of kin who are

potentially unaware of the death or the arrangements and perhaps have objections, may reasonably

be regarded” as outrageous conduct. Id. at 66. We also held that the plaintiffs had sufficiently

pleaded intent as to the defendants. Id.

¶ 18   We note that in Rekosh we determined that the plaintiffs had stated an intentional infliction

of emotional distress claim against the defendants for conduct that was not directed specifically at

the plaintiffs. We also note that the plaintiffs were not in the presence of the allegedly outrageous

conduct when it occurred. Indeed, the plaintiffs were not even aware at the time that the defendants

had entered into the agreement to cremate the decedent’s body. Id. at 64-66.

¶ 19   Based on Rekosh and the above authority, a plaintiff may maintain a cause of action for

intentional infliction of emotional distress even if the alleged outrageous conduct was not directed

specifically at the plaintiff. Further, a plaintiff need not be in the presence of the conduct when it

occurs in order to assert that the conduct caused him emotional distress. Indeed, if the rule were

                                                 -6-
2023 IL App (2d) 220197

otherwise, it would sanction the conduct of those who act surreptitiously while punishing those

who engage in the same conduct in the open. We see no reason why there should be such a

distinction. See Beal v. Broadard, No. SUCV200205765C, 2005 WL 1009632, at *8 (Mass. Super.

Ct. Feb. 4, 2005) (even though the “defendants never intended or directed any extreme or

outrageous conduct towards [the parents of the 10-year-old sexual assault victim], and indeed, they

certainly hoped that neither of her parents would ever learn of any such conduct, it is a question of

fact for the jury whether the defendants acted recklessly and indifferently to the likely effect of

their conduct on family members who were apt in time to learn of the outrageous conduct”).

Moreover, relaxing the presence requirement here is appropriate because this case involves the

dissemination of vile and disturbing text messages. These messages have the potential to last

forever in the digital world, which thereby prolongs the period in which Goodman could

experience emotional distress because of them.

¶ 20   Kornick insists that the facts in Rekosh are not applicable, because they were more

egregious than those presented here. We believe, however, that whether the facts alleged here are

sufficiently egregious to warrant damages is for the trier of the fact to resolve, not the court on a

motion for summary judgment. Borchers v. Franciscan Tertiary Province of Sacred Heart, Inc.,

2011 IL App (2d) 101257, ¶ 30.

¶ 21   We further note that the Appellate Court, First District, recently discussed the presence

requirement for a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress in Lopez Colunga v. Advocate

Health and Hospitals Corp., 2023 IL App (1st) 211386. There, the court determined that a

defendant could not be liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress to a plaintiff who was

“unknown [(to it)] and not present” when the allegedly outrageous conduct occurred. (Emphasis

                                                -7-
2023 IL App (2d) 220197

in original). Id. ¶ 17. Lopez Colunga is distinguishable from the facts herein, as Kornick was

undoubtedly aware of Goodman’s existence.

¶ 22   Having found that a person can be held liable for conduct toward a third party, we consider

whether Kornick has established that there is no genuine issue of fact about whether he intended

or was reckless about the likelihood that his text messages to C.S. would cause Goodman severe

emotional distress. We believe that questions of fact remain as to whether Kornick should have

known that vile and disturbing text messages sent to Goodman’s 13-year-old son would ultimately

be seen by Goodman and cause Goodman emotional distress. As such, we reverse the trial court’s

order of summary judgment in Kornick’s favor.

¶ 23   In so ruling, we reject Kornick’s argument that Goodman cannot maintain an action against

him because he did not intend Goodman to see the text messages. First, a party’s intent when acting

is a question of fact. Id. As summary judgment must be reserved for cases in which there is no

question of material fact (735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 2020)), it generally should not be used

when a party’s intent is a central issue in the case (Schroeder v. Winyard, 375 Ill. App. 3d 358,

364 (2007)). Indeed, we have repeatedly held that “ ‘ “summary judgment is particularly

inappropriate where the inferences which the parties seek to have drawn deal with questions of

motive, intent[,] and subjective feelings and reactions.” ’ ” Borchers, 2011 IL App (2d) 101257,

¶ 30 (quoting Farmers Automobile Insurance Ass’n v. Williams, 321 Ill. App. 3d 310, 314 (2001),

quoting Raprager v. Allstate Insurance Co., 183 Ill. App. 3d 847, 859 (1989)).

¶ 24   Second, as set forth above, where outrageous conduct is directed to a person’s family

member, liability may attach if the actor’s conduct was either intentional or reckless. Kornick does

not acknowledge this standard but instead asserts that he did not intend for Goodman to see any

text messages. This assertion does not support an order of summary judgment in Kornick’s favor.

                                               -8-
2023 IL App (2d) 220197

Instead, it raises a question of fact for the jury to resolve as to whether his actions were intentional

or so reckless as to warrant the imposition of liability. Id.

¶ 25    As an alternative basis to affirm the trial court’s judgment, Kornick argues that Goodman

failed to establish the third element of the tort—that he suffered any distress because of seeing the

text messages. For this element to be met, the distress caused by the outrageous conduct, when

measured by its intensity and duration, must be so severe that no reasonable person could be

expected to endure it. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 cmt. d, at 73 & cmt. j, at 77-78 (1965);

Schweihs, 2016 IL 120041, ¶ 51; Benton v. Little League Baseball, Inc., 2020 IL App (1st) 190549,

¶ 64. Given this high standard, a complaint alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress

must be more specific and detailed than normally required in pleading a tort action. Welsh v.

Commonwealth Edison Co., 306 Ill. App. 3d 148, 155 (1999).

¶ 26    Here, Goodman stated in his declaration in opposition to Kornick’s motion for summary

judgment that viewing the text messages physically sickened him and made him frantic about how

he could protect his children from Kornick. He then began taking prescription medications due to

his emotional reaction to reading the messages, and he consulted with two doctors. These

assertions require consideration of Goodman’s subjective feelings and reactions and if they were

correspondent to the conduct that was directed to his son. This is a question to be resolved by the

trier of fact, not by the court on a motion for summary judgment. Borchers, 2011 IL App (2d)

101257, ¶ 30.

¶ 27    We further note that, although “severe distress must be proved” for a claim of intentional

infliction of emotional distress, “in many cases the extreme and outrageous character of the

defendant’s conduct is in itself important evidence that the distress has existed.” (Internal quotation

marks omitted.) Honaker v. Smith, 256 F.3d 477, 496 (7th Cir. 2001) (noting that Illinois courts

                                                 -9-
2023 IL App (2d) 220197

have tended to merge the conduct and distress elements of intentional infliction of emotional

distress such that the more severe the conduct, the less proof of severe distress required); see also

Feltmeier v. Feltmeier, 207 Ill. 2d 263, 276-77 (2003) (“severe emotional distress must be proved;

but in many cases the extreme and outrageous character of the defendant’s conduct is in itself

important evidence that the distress has existed” (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 cmt.

j, at 77-78 (1965))); A.J. by Julka v. Butler Illinois School District #53, No. 17 C 2849, 2020 WL

3960444, at *4-5 (N.D. Ill. July 13, 2020), aff’d sub nom. Julka v. Board of Education of Butler

School District #53, No. 20-2531, 2021 WL 5563721 (7th Cir. Nov. 29, 2021).

¶ 28   In A.J., the Butler School Board accused two children of cheating. A.J., 2020 WL 396044,

at *1. Their father sued, asserting that the school board’s and its president’s baseless accusations

had caused him emotional distress. Id. at *2. Following a trial, the jury found for the father on his

claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Id. The district court denied the defendants’

posttrial motion, explaining:

       “Some of the defendants’ conduct—public accusations of cheating and prohibition from

       participating in any academic competition in the school district—was directed to [the

       father’s] children, A.J. and R.J., who had heightened susceptibility to distress due to their

       age. Though the claim at issue was brought by [the father], any reasonable person in the

       defendants’ position would understand that an attack on one’s children by a person in a

       position of authority—particularly a public accusation of cheating—would be highly likely

       to cause the children’s parents severe distress. With this in mind, the jury could have

       reasonably concluded that [the school board president] and the school board, who knew

       that their sanctions and public statements targeted [the father’s] minor children, acted with

                                               - 10 -
2023 IL App (2d) 220197

       knowledge of ‘at least a high probability’ that their conduct would cause distress.” Id. at

       *4.

¶ 29   The above cases all stand for the proposition that the more outrageous the conduct, the

more likely one is to suffer severe emotional distress. This is particularly true if the outrageous

conduct is directed towards one’s child. See id. We believe that this is even more true if the child

has autistic features. Based on the allegations in the complaint detailing the outrageous conduct

directed towards Goodman’s 13-year-old autistic child, it is up to the jury to determine whether

that conduct caused Goodman severe emotional distress.

¶ 30                                   III. CONCLUSION

¶ 31   For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Lake County is reversed and

the cause is remanded for additional proceedings.

¶ 32   Reversed and remanded.

                                               - 11 -
2023 IL App (2d) 220197

                     Kornick v. Goodman, 2023 IL App (2d) 220197

Decision Under Review:     Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lake County, No. 18-L-356; the
                           Hon. Charles W. Smith, Judge, presiding.

Attorneys                  Neil M. Rosenbaum, Damon E. Dunn, and Bryan G. Schatz, of
for                        Funkhouser Vegosen Liebman & Dunn Ltd., of Chicago, for
Appellant:                 appellant.

Attorneys                  Daniel F. Konicek, Peter L. LeGrand, and Amanda J. Hamilton, of
for                        Konicek & Dillon, P.C., of Geneva, for appellee.
Appellee:

                                        - 12 -