CULLISON V. MEDLEY 570 N.E.2d 27 (Ind. 1991) CASE BRIEF

CULLISON V. MEDLEY

570 N.E.2d 27 (Ind. 1991)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Cullison (P) filed a complaint against Medley (Ds) alleging trespass, assault, harassment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress and sought to recover damages for his emotional and psychological injury. The Court of Appeals affirmed the entry of summary judgment for Ds. P appealed.

FACTS: P encountered Sandy, the 16-year-old daughter of D in a grocery store parking lot. P invited her to have a Coke with him and to come to his home to talk further. A few hours later, someone knocked on the door of his mobile home. P got out of bed and answered the door. P saw a person standing in the darkness who said that she wanted to talk to him. P went back to his bedroom, dressed, and returned to the darkened living room of his trailer. When he entered the living room and turned the lights on, he was confronted by Ds, Sandy Medley, her father, her brother, her mother, and brother-in-law Terry Simmons. D was on crutches due to knee surgery and had a revolver in a holster strapped to his thigh. Sandy called him a 'pervert' and told him he was 'sick', the berated him while keeping her hand in her pocket, convincing P that she also was carrying a pistol. The brother and brother-in-law said nothing, but their presence in his trailer home further intimidated him. D never withdrew the gun from his holster, but D 'grabbed for the gun a few times and shook the gun' at P while threatening to 'jump astraddle' of P if he did not leave Sandy alone. No one actually touched P. P suffered chest pains and feared that he was having a heart attack. Two months later, D glared at him in a menacing manner while again armed with a handgun at a restaurant in Linton. P learned that D had previously shot a man. This really set P on edge when D glared at him and stood next to the booth at which he was seated while armed with a handgun in a holster. P sought psychological counseling and therapy and continued to see a therapist for approximately 18 months. P sought psychiatric help and received prescription medication which prevented him from operating power tools or driving an automobile, thus injuring P in his sole proprietorship construction business. P sued D on four counts. The trial court ruled against P and the appeals court affirmed. P appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner