Samms v. Eccles Case Brief

Summary of Samms v. Eccles, 11 Utah 2d 289, 358 P.2d 344 (1961)

Relevant Facts: From May to December 1957, a married woman (p) was harassed and elicited with sexual relations at work, on the phone at all hours of the night and an occasion where the (d) came to her house and elicited an indecent exposure of his genitals. (P) Is suing for 1,500 dollars and punitive damages as well.

Legal Issue(s): Is there a charge for intentional infliction of emotional distress?

Legal Issue(s): YES, in this case there is. It is a very fine like to prove IIOED. The activity has to be proven extreme and outrageous. The mere solicitation to sexual intercourse would not be actionable even though it may be offense to the offeree. Chief Judge Magruder quoted that “there is no harm in asking", Supreme Court of Kentucky in Reed v. Maley[115 Ky. 816, 74 S.W. 1079 (1903).

Law or Rule(s): The action for IIOED has to be 1) with the purpose of inflicting emotional distress 2) where any reasonable person would have known that such would result; and his actions are such a nature as to be considered outrageous and intolerable in that they offend against the generally accepted standards of decency and morality.

Dissent: the dissent says that the (D) deliberately intentionally tried to injure the plaintiff by eliciting unwelcome affairs even after she made it vividly clear that they were unwanted by the (P).

Copyright © 2001-2012 All rights reserved. Privacy Policy HotChalk Partner