Court Opinion

ID: 9572805
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:44:44.207961+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:34:20.768988
License: Public Domain

Rees, J.:
Concurring.
Plaintiff brought this action asserting four alternative causes of action — assault, slander, outrage and denial of constitutional rights by a person acting under color of law (42 U.S.C. § 1983). He appeals from an adverse order of summary judgment entered after completion of discovery. The majority concludes plaintiff has a submissible case against defendant Hug for assault and outrage but not for slander or denial of constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They also conclude plaintiff has no submissible claim against the Shawnee County Board of County Commissioners. I agree with their result. However, I look at this case and record somewhat differently and I cannot join in their approach to and treatment of certain matters.
I am concerned first that the presentation of the facts in this case be properly read and understood. Although the first paragraph of the majority opinion acknowledges the facts are to be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and professes to do so, the factual statement becomes an exposition of the plaintiff’s case. Few material facts are demonstrated in the discovery record without contradiction. What the facts are has not been decided, and it is not our lot to do so. The question before us is not whether plaintiff should recover in this action; it simply is whether the discovery record, when viewed most favorably to plaintiff, contains evidence which if true is sufficient to support findings of fact that in turn would support a judgment for recovery by plaintiff. The question before us is one of law.
I agree with remand of the assault question, but would elaborate on the reasoning. By one of its pattern instructions, the Committee on Pattern Jury Instructions, the Kansas Judicial Council, suggests assault be defined as “an intentional threat or attempt, coupled with apparent ability, to do bodily harm to another, resulting in immediate apprehension of bodily harm,” and adds “[n]o bodily contact is necessary.” PIK Civ. 2d 14.01 (1977). This is the statutory definition of the criminal offense of assault (K.S.A. 21-3408) rephrased. The definition is not disputed by the parties. The pivotal issues before us are whether the discovery record includes sufficient evidence to submit to a jury the question whether Hug intended to threaten or attempt to do *616bodily harm to plaintiff and whether plaintiff was in immediate apprehension of bodily harm.
The trial judge found there was insufficient evidence Hug “intended to inflict bodily harm.” This misses the mark on the first issue. Assuming apparent ability to do bodily harm, assault does not require that the actor intend bodily harm; it is sufficient if the actor intends to threaten to do bodily harm.
Hug’s intent may be deduced by a jury from his words and conduct. Circumstances attending the act of a party are competent evidence of the state of his mind in doing it. Eckerd v. Weve, 85 Kan. 752, 758, 118 Pac. 870 (1911). Intent may be shown by acts, circumstances and inferences deducible therefrom. State v. Smith, 4 Kan. App. 2d 149, 150, 603 P.2d 638 (1979).
Plaintiff’s testimonial description of Hug’s words and conduct speaks for itself. That testimony, if found true, is sufficient to raise the fact question whether Hug intentionally threatened bodily harm to plaintiff. While words alone do not constitute assault, there is an assault if words together with other acts or circumstances put one in reasonable immediate apprehension of bodily harm. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 31 (1965); PIK Civ. 2d 14.01 (1977).
The trial judge also found the discovery record failed to show plaintiff apprehended bodily harm. He found that what plaintiff suffered was concern for his job and the impact its loss would have on his family. The particular portion of the discovery record going to this issue is the following deposition testimony of plaintiff’s:
“ ‘You are nothing but a fucking spic and a Mexican greaser,’ and he kept repeating it over and over, and he kept shaking his fist in front of me. I was froze because I was afraid of the man. For the first time in my life, I was terrified of one man calling me that. I was afraid for my job. I was afraid for my family.”
While it is true this testimony demonstrates plaintiff’s concern for his job and the impact its loss would have on his family, we are of the opinion reasonable factfinders might differ as to whether this testimony, if found true, also establishes apprehension of bodily harm. It is a close call, but I find it is for a jury to decide upon presentation and testing of evidence at trial.
The discovery record presents a submissible claim for assault.
Aside from the rather amorphous opinion in Whitsel v. Watts, 98 Kan. 509, 159 Pac. 401 (1916), and possibly Townsend v. *617Seefeld, 102 Kan. 302, 305,169 Pac. 1157 (1918), our case law on the tort of outrage begins with Dawson v. Associates Financial Services Co., 215 Kan. 814, 529 P.2d 104 (1974). Roberts v. Saylor, 230 Kan. 289, 292, 637 P.2d 1175 (1981). In Dawson, defendants’ directed verdict was reversed. In every later reported Kansas appellate opinion addressing the tort of outrage, plaintiff was held not entitled to recovery as a matter of law. Roberts v. Saylor, 230 Kan. 289 (summary judgment affirmed); Wiehe v. Kukal, 225 Kan. 478, 592 P.2d 860 (1979) (judgment for plaintiff reversed); Vespa v. Safety Fed. Savings & Loan Ass’n, 219 Kan. 578, 549 P.2d 878 (1976) (summary judgment affirmed); Dotson v. McLaughlin, 216 Kan. 201, 531 P.2d 1 (1975) (judgment for plaintiff reversed); Young v. Hecht, 3 Kan. App. 2d 510, 597 P.2d 682, rev. denied 226 Kan. 793 (1979), (summary judgment affirmed); Bradshaw v. Swagerty, 1 Kan. App. 2d 213, 563 P.2d 511 (1977) (summary judgment affirmed).
Roberts is our present text on the tort of outrage. There it is said the cause of action is for the intentional infliction of mental distress; no bodily harm is required to support such an action. “One who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another is subject to liability for such emotional distress.” 230 Kan. at 292.
“Proof of four elements is required to establish the cause of action: (1) The conduct of defendant must be intentional or in reckless disregard of plaintiff; (2) the conduct must be extreme and outrageous; (3) there must be a causal connection between defendant’s conduct and plaintiff’s mental distress; and (4) plaintiff’s mental distress must be extreme and severe.” 230 Kan. at 292.
According to Roberts, there are two determinations that must be made as matters of law before consideration is given to proof of the four elements of the cause of action. These two threshold determinations are:
“(1) Whether the defendant’s conduct may reasonably be regarded as so extreme and outrageous as to permit recovery; and (2) whether the emotional distress suffered by plaintiff is in such extreme degree the law must intervene because the distress inflicted is so severe that no reasonable person should be expected to endure it.” 230 Kan. at 292-293.
A common factor is reasonableness. In other words, (1) would it be reasonable to find the defendant’s conduct so extreme and outrageous as to permit recovery; and (2) should no reasonable person be expected to endure emotional distress of the extremity *618and severity reasonably and actually suffered by the plaintiff? Simply put, the plaintiffs’ claims in Roberts, Wiehe, Vespa, Dotson, Young and Bradshaw did not pass muster upon threshold examinations. As Roberts puts it:
“If the court determines from the pleadings, stipulations, admissions, and deposition of the plaintiff that reasonable fact finders might differ as to whether defendant’s conduct was sufficiently extreme and outrageous as to subject him to liability for emotional distress, and if the court further determines plaintiff’s emotional distress was such that reasonable fact finders might differ as to whether plaintiff’s emotional distress was genuine and so severe and extreme as to result in liability, then and only then, it must be left to the jury to determine liability based on the evidence at trial.” 230 Kan. at 294.
In my view and in the obvious view of the majority, the discovery record in this case is sufficient for a reasonable jury to find defendant Hug’s conduct was so extreme and outrageous as to permit recovery by the plaintiff and to find the plaintiff reasonably and actually suffered emotional distress, which under the circumstances was so extreme and severe no reasonable person should be expected to endure it.
“It should be understood that liability does not arise from mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty expressions, or other trivialities. Members of the public are necessarily expected and required to be hardened to a certain amount of criticism, rough language and to occasional acts and words that are definitely inconsiderate and unkind. The law should not intervene where someone’s feelings merely are hurt. Freedom remains to express an unflattering opinion and to blow off relatively harmless steam which comes from an uncontrollable temper. Conduct to be a sufficient basis for an action to recover for emotional distress must be outrageous to the point that it goes beyond the bounds of decency and is utterly intolerable in a civilized society.” Roberts v. Saylor, 230 Kan. at 293.
It is in this regard that the trial judge found plaintiff’s claim deficient under the discovery record. The majority and I disagree with that decision. If Hug’s conduct is found by a jury to have occurred as the discovery record indicates when viewed most favorably to the plaintiff, that conduct, under the circumstances then existing, could reasonably be found to exceed mere insult, indignity, threat, annoyance, petty expression, triviality, criticism, rough language, unflattering opinion, uncontrollable blow off of relatively harmless steam, or inconsiderate and unkind acts and words members of the public are necessarily expected and required to be hardened to. This is not to say such is the case, only that there is room for a jury to so find.
*619With respect to the second threshold determination, Roberts says:
“The second threshold requirement which must be met and which the court must first determine as present is that the plaintiff’s emotional distress is sufficiently severe, genuine and extreme that no reasonable person should be expected to endure it.
“Emotional distress passes under various names such as mental suffering, mental anguish, nervous shock, and includes all highly unpleasant mental reactions, such as fright, horror, grief, shame, embarrassment, anger, chagrin, disappointment, and worry. However, it is only when emotional distress is extreme that possible liability arises.
“The extreme distress required must be reasonable and justified under the circumstances, and there can be no liability where the plaintiff has appeared to suffer exaggerated and unreasonable emotional distress, unless it results from a peculiar susceptibility to such distress of which the actor had knowledge. Dawson v. Associates Financial Services Co., 215 Kan. at 820; Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 (1), comment /. The emotional distress must in fact exist, and it must be severe. Prosser, Law of Torts (4th ed. 1971) at 59.” 230 Kan. at 293-294.
The proposed medical evidence, standing alone, is sufficient to support a finding plaintiff suffered genuine and severe emotional distress as a result of the encounter. The discovery record includes evidence such that reasonable factfinders might differ as to whether such emotional distress was so extreme no reasonable person should be expected to endure it and whether it was reasonable and justified under the circumstances. In this situation, the second prong of the threshold test is satisfied.
Having met the two threshold requirements, it follows there is sufficient evidence for a jury to find proof of the second and fourth elements of the tort of outrage. However the discovery record is viewed, it cannot reasonably be denied it reveals Hug’s conduct to have been intentional; there is sufficient proposed evidence to satisfy the first element of the cause of action. There obviously is sufficient proposed evidence to support a jury finding of causally related emotional distress; the third element of the cause of action can be satisfied.
It may be that at the close of plaintiff’s evidence or at the close of all the evidence at trial, the evidence presented and properly admitted will be legally insufficient for jury consideration. It may be that under the trial evidence, a jury will find failure of proof of one or more elements of the tort of outrage. In either event, judgment against the plaintiff will be proper. We merely find the discovery record sufficient to allow plaintiff to attempt to prove at *620trial the four elements of the tort of outrage and that judgment should not be entered against him now.
I agree with the majority’s resolution of the slander question. There is nothing in the record to support a finding Hug communicated to a third party a statement falling within any of the four categories of slander per se as enunciated in Kraisinger v. Liggett, 3 Kan. App. 2d 235, 592 P.2d 477, rev. denied 226 Kan. 792 (1979). Neither is there evidence of communication to others resulting in diminution of Gomez’ reputation and consequential actual damage to Gomez resulting from conduct of such third parties; thus, there is no slander per quod.
In regard to Gomez’ claim that Hug’s purported defamatory statements entitle him to pursue recovery under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the only “color of law” claim urged in the trial court, the case authorities cited in the majority opinion render recovery by the plaintiff impermissible.
Lastly, summary judgment in favor of the Shawnee County Board of County Commissioners was correct. There can be no recovery under the doctrine of respondeat superior — county commissioners are not agents of the board or of each other. Further, the conduct of Hug of which complaint is made cannot be viewed other than as personal, and not an act of the county.