For Your Data Cullison V. Medley Example Brief
November 21, 2020
Edit
Cullison v. Medley
570 N.E.2d 27 (Ind. 1991)
Tort Law
PROCEDURAL HISTORY: Plaintiff filed a electrical load against defendants, daughter, father, together with iii menage unit of measurement members, alleging trespass, assault, harassment, together with intentional infliction of emotional distress together with sought to recover damages for his emotional together with psychological injury. The Court affirmed the entry of summary judgment for the daughter, father, together with iii menage unit of measurement members. The litigant sought transfer for review.
FACTS:
-The litigant asked the fille over to his place.
-A few hours afterwards someone knocked on the door of the litigant's mobile home.
-The litigant testified he got out of bed together with answered the door where he saw a woman individual figure inward the dark.
-The litigant went together with pose on simply about clothing together with when he returned the daughter, father, together with iii menage unit of measurement members were inward his menage unit of measurement room.
-The virile individual raise had a gun. The virile individual raise threatened to "jump astraddle."
-The litigant testified that afterwards he sought psychological counseling together with therapy.
-The litigant equally good testified he had encountered the virile individual raise inward a eatery where he continued to threaten together with demo the litigant the gun.
HOLDING:
On review, the courtroom held that (1) the Indiana "impact rule" did non apply to prohibit recover for emotional distress when sustained inward the course of report of a tortious trespass, (2) it was for the jury to receive upwards one's heed whether a trespass occurred together with whether such intentional trespass foreseeably would provoke an emotional disturbance or trauma, together with (3) it was for the jury to receive upwards one's heed whether the litigant's apprehension of beingness shot or injured was i that would unremarkably travel aroused inward the heed of a reasonable person.
RULES
-The full general rule, known equally THE IMPACT RULE, is that damages for mental anguish are recoverable solely when accompanied yesteryear together with resulting from a physical injury.
-The rationale behind this dominion is that absent physical injury, mental anguish is speculative, plain of report to exaggeration, probable to Pb to fictitious claims, together with oft together with thus unforeseeable that at that topographic point is no rational footing for awarding damages.
-The "impact rule" does non apply to prohibit recovery for emotional distress when sustained inward the course of report of a tortious trespass.
- When i intentionally invades the premises of simply about other inward such a agency equally to provoke a reasonably foreseeable emotional disturbance or trauma of the rightful occupier of the premises, the occupier may, inward add-on to recovering damages to the realty, if any, recover damages for such emotional injury.
-The mere fact of a physical injury, soundless minor, does non brand mental distress damages whatever less speculative, plain of report to exaggeration, or probable to Pb to fictitious claims.
CONCLUSION: The courtroom accepted transfer of the case, vacated the appellate court's opinion, reversed the entry of summary judgment equally to the counts alleging trespass together with assault, together with affirmed the entry of summary judgment on the counts alleging invasion of privacy together with intentional infliction of emotional distress. The courtroom remanded for farther proceedings. The courtroom held the litigant could non simultaneously keep actions for harassment together with trespass.
---
Interested inward learning how to acquire the top grades inward your police trace schoolhouse classes? Want to larn how to report smarter than your competition? Interested inward transferring to a high ranked school?
570 N.E.2d 27 (Ind. 1991)
Tort Law
PROCEDURAL HISTORY: Plaintiff filed a electrical load against defendants, daughter, father, together with iii menage unit of measurement members, alleging trespass, assault, harassment, together with intentional infliction of emotional distress together with sought to recover damages for his emotional together with psychological injury. The Court affirmed the entry of summary judgment for the daughter, father, together with iii menage unit of measurement members. The litigant sought transfer for review.
FACTS:
-The litigant asked the fille over to his place.
-A few hours afterwards someone knocked on the door of the litigant's mobile home.
-The litigant testified he got out of bed together with answered the door where he saw a woman individual figure inward the dark.
-The litigant went together with pose on simply about clothing together with when he returned the daughter, father, together with iii menage unit of measurement members were inward his menage unit of measurement room.
-The virile individual raise had a gun. The virile individual raise threatened to "jump astraddle."
-The litigant testified that afterwards he sought psychological counseling together with therapy.
-The litigant equally good testified he had encountered the virile individual raise inward a eatery where he continued to threaten together with demo the litigant the gun.
HOLDING:
On review, the courtroom held that (1) the Indiana "impact rule" did non apply to prohibit recover for emotional distress when sustained inward the course of report of a tortious trespass, (2) it was for the jury to receive upwards one's heed whether a trespass occurred together with whether such intentional trespass foreseeably would provoke an emotional disturbance or trauma, together with (3) it was for the jury to receive upwards one's heed whether the litigant's apprehension of beingness shot or injured was i that would unremarkably travel aroused inward the heed of a reasonable person.
RULES
-The full general rule, known equally THE IMPACT RULE, is that damages for mental anguish are recoverable solely when accompanied yesteryear together with resulting from a physical injury.
-The rationale behind this dominion is that absent physical injury, mental anguish is speculative, plain of report to exaggeration, probable to Pb to fictitious claims, together with oft together with thus unforeseeable that at that topographic point is no rational footing for awarding damages.
-The "impact rule" does non apply to prohibit recovery for emotional distress when sustained inward the course of report of a tortious trespass.
- When i intentionally invades the premises of simply about other inward such a agency equally to provoke a reasonably foreseeable emotional disturbance or trauma of the rightful occupier of the premises, the occupier may, inward add-on to recovering damages to the realty, if any, recover damages for such emotional injury.
-The mere fact of a physical injury, soundless minor, does non brand mental distress damages whatever less speculative, plain of report to exaggeration, or probable to Pb to fictitious claims.
CONCLUSION: The courtroom accepted transfer of the case, vacated the appellate court's opinion, reversed the entry of summary judgment equally to the counts alleging trespass together with assault, together with affirmed the entry of summary judgment on the counts alleging invasion of privacy together with intentional infliction of emotional distress. The courtroom remanded for farther proceedings. The courtroom held the litigant could non simultaneously keep actions for harassment together with trespass.
---
Interested inward learning how to acquire the top grades inward your police trace schoolhouse classes? Want to larn how to report smarter than your competition? Interested inward transferring to a high ranked school?