MEITER V. CAVANAUGH,
580 P.2d 399 (1978)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Defendant (D) appealed from a jury verdict. D alleged that Plaintiff
(P) failed to establish a prima facie case of intentional infliction of emotional distress
by outrageous conduct.
FACTS: P and D entered into contract for P to purchase D's home. D would have a right to
retain possession of the property on a rental basis for a period not to exceed six weeks
after the delivery of the deed. After closing D informed P that he would be unable to move
until the end of his children's school term, sometime in early June. P explained that her
daughter-in-law desperately needed a place to stay. D became quite belligerent, and
responded, 'Well, as far as that's concerned, you can move [her furniture] up in that
shanty. When I get out, you can roll it down the hill.' D also told P at another encounter,
'I'm an attorney. I know my rights. I'll move when I'm damn well ready.' He also called P,
who was visibly bandaged after recent cancer surgery, a 'sick old woman.' D also mailed a
letter to P notifying her that he was considering legal action. The letter implied that D
had some special influence with the court: 'I am sure the local court known personally to me
over the years, will appreciate my problem . . . In fact, he may just break our contract,
which would satisfy me and I will repay every cent of your money.' P found another home for
her daughter-in-law. D vacated in early July. P found that the premises had been damaged. P
sold the house in December. P sued D under intentional infliction of emotional distress. D
moved for a directed verdict but that was denied. P got the verdict and D 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.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment