Cullison v. Medley
570 N.E.2d 27 · Indiana Supreme Court · 1991
Facts
Dan Cullison invited Sandy Medley to his home, after which Sandy, her parents, and other family members confronted Cullison in his mobile home. Ernest Medley, armed with a holstered revolver, made threats, causing Cullison to fear for his life and suffer severe emotional distress requiring psychological treatment. Cullison sued for trespass, assault, harassment (invasion of privacy), and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Issue
Does Indiana's 'impact rule' prohibit recovery for emotional distress in cases of intentional trespass and assault, and were the trial court's summary judgments on all four alleged torts appropriate given the facts presented?
Holding
The Indiana Supreme Court reversed summary judgment for trespass and assault, finding the 'impact rule' inapplicable to intentional torts. It affirmed summary judgment for invasion of privacy (due to overlap with trespass) and intentional infliction of emotional distress (due to lack of intent to cause emotional harm), remanding the case for trial on trespass and assault.
Rule
The 'impact rule' does not apply to prohibit recovery for emotional distress when sustained in the course of an intentional tort like trespass or assault. Intentional infliction of emotional distress is recognized but requires proof of extreme and outrageous conduct with intent to cause severe emotional distress.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.