Brower v. Ackerley
943 P.2d 1141 · Court of Appeals of Washington · 1997
Facts
Jordan Brower, a civic activist, received a campaign of anonymous, harassing, and threatening phone calls, including death threats, after he initiated legal action against Ackerley Communications over illegal billboards. Police traced the calls to Christopher Ackerley's residence, who implicated his brother Theodore. Brower sued the Ackerleys for civil assault, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and the tort of outrage, claiming severe emotional distress.
Issue
Did the anonymous threatening phone calls constitute civil assault given the lack of imminent harm? Was Brower's alleged emotional distress sufficiently severe and objectively manifested to support claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress or the tort of outrage?
Holding
The court affirmed the dismissal of the civil assault claim because the threatened harm was not imminent. It also affirmed the dismissal of the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim due to insufficient objective symptomatology. However, the court reversed the dismissal of the tort of outrage claim, finding that Brower's alleged emotional distress could be considered severe by a jury given the extreme nature of the conduct.
Rule
Civil assault requires apprehension of *imminent* physical violence, and words alone are insufficient unless accompanied by acts or circumstances indicating immediate harm. Negligent infliction of emotional distress requires "objective symptomatology." The tort of outrage requires (1) extreme and outrageous conduct, (2) intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, and (3) actual severe emotional distress, where the extreme nature of the conduct can be important evidence of severity.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.