Betty Saint Rogers v. Louisville Land Company
2012 Tenn. LEXIS 221
| Tenn. | 2012Background
- Betty Saint Rogers sued Louisville Land Company and its owner for negligent and intentional conduct related to inadequate cemetery maintenance after her son’s 2001 burial.
- Rogers purchased easements to adjacent plots and claimed assurances about mowing and maintenance were false.
- Fort Hill Cemetery was found by courts to have long-standing maintenance deficiencies addressed in a separate state action starting in 2005.
- A non-jury trial in 2010 awarded Rogers $250 for breach of contract, $45,000 compensatory for outrageous conduct, $250,000 punitive, and substantial fees.
- The Court of Appeals reversed several awards, prompting this Tennessee Supreme Court review on serious mental injury, attorney’s fees, and personal liability of a shareholder.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rogers proved a serious mental injury to support IIED damages | Rogers contends she suffered severe distress from neglectful maintenance | Defendants contend proof of serious mental injury was insufficient | No substantial proof of serious mental injury; IIED damages reversed |
| Whether Rogers is entitled to attorney’s fees under §46-2-307 | Rogers seeks fees for participating as petitioner in the district attorney’s suit | Statute requires a private suit to enforce trust fund; Rogers abandoned that claim | Attorney’s fees not awarded; statute not satisfied by Rogers’ actions |
| Whether Williams should be personally liable for breach of contract | Williams as alter ego should be liable given control over maintenance | No piercing of the corporate veil; evidence insufficient | Veil piercing rejected; Williams not personally liable |
Key Cases Cited
- Lourcey v. Estate of Scarlett, 146 S.W.3d 48 (Tenn. 2004) (elements include intentional or reckless conduct and serious mental injury)
- Leach v. Taylor, 124 S.W.3d 87 (Tenn. 2004) (conduct must be intentional or reckless to support IIED)
- Camper v. Minor, 915 S.W.2d 437 (Tenn. 1996) (developed the general negligence approach to serious emotional injury)
- Miller v. Willbanks, 8 S.W.3d 607 (Tenn. 1999) (no expert testimony required to prove serious mental injury in some IIED cases; expert may help)
- Medlin v. Allied Inv. Co., 398 S.W.2d 270 (Tenn. 1966) (recognizes outrage and serious mental injury as necessary for IIED/mental distress claims)
- Ramsey v. Beavers, 931 S.W.2d 527 (Tenn. 1996) (limits recovery to serious or severe emotional injuries; not every fright or hurt feelings)
- Bain v. Wells, 936 S.W.2d 618 (Tenn. 1997) (tort elements include intentional or reckless conduct and serious mental injury)
- Doe 1 ex rel. Doe 1 v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Nashville, 154 S.W.3d 22 (Tenn. 2005) (discusses IIED/outrageous conduct framework and proof of injury)
- Eskin v. State Univ. of N.Y., 262 S.W.3d 735 (Tenn. 2011) (discusses serious mental injury in context of bystander and other IIED theories)