State Rubbish Collectors Ass'n Case Brief - Tort Law

University:
University College London
Course:
LAWS0013 | Tort Law
Academic year:

2019
Views:

255

Pages:

2
Author:

Prince Sampson

State Rubbish Collectors Ass’n v. Siliznoff Supreme Court of California, 1952 38 Cal.2d 330, 240 P.2d 282. FACTS Parties: Plaintiff: State Rubbish Collectors Ass’n, Appellant Defendant: Siliznoff, Appellee Procedural History: o Superior Court of Los Angeles County ruled in favor of the defendant, Siliznoff for $1,250 in general and special damages and $4000 punitive damages, plaintiff appealed. Relevant Facts: o o o o Plaintiff was seeking recovery for debt that the defendant owed them Defendant had collected garbage and money that was supposedly under jurisdiction of another collector and was forced to go before the association and pay this debt The defendant testified to being threatened with physical abuse if he did not comply with the demands of the plaintiff He contends due to the mental distress he became ill and was fearful of what the plaintiff would do to him if he did not comply Basis for Dispute: ISSUE: Whether one can recover damages for intentional infliction of mental and emotional distress when no physical injury has occurred? PARTIES’ ARGUEMENTS: Plaintiff: o o There is no enough evidence to support the claims made by the defendant No evidence to establish assault because the threats were made in relation to what could happen in the future Defendant: HOLDING o Judgment is affirmed for the plaintiff. “ In cases where mental suffering constitutes a major element of damages it is anomalous to deny recovery because the defendant’s intentional misconduct fell short of producing some physical injury” pg. 54 DISPOSITION OF THE COURT: o o A cause of action is established when it is shown that one… intentionally subjects another to the mental suffering incident to serious threats to his physical well-being, whether or not the threats are made under such circumstances as to constitute a technical assault” pg. 52-53 Every individual has the right to be free from mental and emotional distress- such an act is tortious RULE OF LAW: o o o “1934 the Restatement of Torts took the position that "The interest in mental and emotional tranquility and, therefore, in freedom from mental and emotional disturbance is not, as a thing in itself, regarded as of sufficient importance to require others to refrain from conduct intended or recognizably likely to cause such a disturbance." (Restatement, Torts, § 46, comment c.) The Restatement explained the rule allowing recovery for the mere apprehension of bodily harm in traditional assault cases as an historical anomaly (§ 24, comment c), and the rule allowing recovery for insulting conduct by an employee of a common carrier as justified by the necessity of securing for the public comfortable as well as safe service. (§ 48, comment c.)” pg. 53 Restatement Torts, §§306,312 o “if the defendant intentionally subjected the plaintiff to such distress and bodily harm resulted, the defendant would be liable for negligently causing the plaintiff bodily harm” pg. 53 Restatement of Torts §46 o “One who, without a privilege to do so, intentionally causes severe emotional distress to another is liable (a) for such emotional distress, and (b) for bodily harm resulting from it”