State
Rubbish Collectors Ass’n v. Siliznoff
Supreme
Court of
38
Cal.2d 330, 240 P.2d 282.
Prosser,
p. 47-50
Facts:
Siliznoff
was intimidated into signing notes by the threat of future physical force. The plaintiffs sued Siliznoff for collection
of the debts, but Siliznoff said that he was not liable for them because he
signed under duress. Furthermore,
Siliznoff filed a counterclaim saying that he had been assaulted after a
fashion. The defendant prevailed on the
claim and counterclaim, and the plaintiffs appealed on the basis that there was
no evidence of assault. They argued that
assault involves only threats of immediate force rather than threats of future
force.
Issue:
Can someone
be liable for an intentional tort if they violate only the mental and emotional
well-being of another person?
Rule:
The old
rules state that the law will not protect individuals from invasions of their
emotional and mental well-being.
However, the court cites a change in the law reflected in the
Restatement of Torts that says there may be an action for infliction of severe
emotional distress.
Analysis:
The court
recognizes a change in the direction of the law. It makes analogies to other well-recognized
torts, saying that in the case of assault, battery, false imprisonment and
defamation, mental distress will be the primary component of the injury. The court also counters arguments that
allowing mental distress claims will lead to a flood of litigation. The court says that it is up to juries to
decide if the mental distress was serious enough to be actionable.
Conclusion: The court upheld the verdicts
for the defendant.
Notes
and Questions
1. Assault does
not lie because there was no threat of immediate harm. False imprisonment does not lie because the plaintiffs
said they would beat him up later if he left the meeting now. Infliction of mental distress was rare in courts
at the time both with judges and with attorneys.
2. This
definitely expands the realm of intentional torts and could result in a big
rise in the number of claims. I’m not
sure that the comparison made—between how easily the jury can tell outrageous
conduct versus physical harm from emotional harm—is relevant.
3. It seems like
this tort is on shaky ground that has been made more solid over the years.
4. It sounds more
reasonable to require some physical effect.
5. If you’re
going to allow this tort, it seems reasonable to say the mental harm must be severe.
6. It looks like
this tort widened, especially at the time of this decision, has narrowed
somewhat sense, but could widen again.
7. I would guess
that the “substantial certainty” requirement would be quite hard to prove,
because mental consequences actions are far more capricious than physical
consequences of actions.