Dotson v. Edmonson
2:16-cv-15371
| E.D. La. | Dec 4, 2017Background
- On Oct. 7, 2015, Lyle Dotson (18) was stopped by Louisiana State Police troopers during an undercover drug operation in New Orleans; his father Olon Dotson (Professor) was not present at the stop.
- While Lyle was detained, Olon heard his son say “whoa” on a phone call and then the call disconnected; Olon called back multiple times but received no answer.
- Plaintiffs allege Trooper McCartney took and handled Lyle’s phone, observed and disconnected Olon’s incoming calls, and that Olon believed his son was injured or abducted until he reached the police station.
- Olon asserts (1) intentional infliction of emotional distress under La. Civ. Code art. 2315 and (2) two bystander-negligence claims under La. Civ. Code art. 2315.6 (aural witnessing of the encounter and later visual observation of Lyle at the station).
- Defendants moved for partial summary judgment as to Olon’s state-law claims; the court considered whether Olon produced evidence to satisfy the elements of article 2315 and article 2315.6.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether troopers’ conduct was "extreme and outrageous" for intentional infliction of emotional distress (La. art. 2315) | McCartney intentionally disconnected Olon’s calls and denied a worried father access to information about his son, causing severe distress | No evidence of conduct reaching the very high threshold for outrageousness; declining to answer a detainee’s phone is reasonable during an investigatory stop | Court: No genuine dispute—conduct not extreme/outrageous as a matter of law; summary judgment for defendants granted |
| Whether Olon "viewed" an injury-causing event by hearing the phone call (bystander claim under art. 2315.6) | A contemporaneous sensory perception (hearing Lyle say “whoa”) should qualify as "viewing" under the statute | Statute requires viewing the event; mere hearing does not satisfy article 2315.6; no case law shows hearing suffices | Court: Olon did not "view" the event; hearing alone insufficient; summary judgment for defendants granted |
| Whether Olon viewed the injury at the police station soon after it occurred (bystander claim under art. 2315.6) | Seeing Lyle in handcuffs/chained to a bench at the station caused severe emotional distress from an injury that occurred earlier | Olon first saw Lyle ~30 minutes after alleged tightening of handcuffs and arrest; he did not witness the injury nor arrive before substantial change occurred | Court: Olon did not actually view the injury-causing event or arrive soon enough; element unmet; summary judgment for defendants granted |
| Whether Olon produced sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment on any element of either claim | Olon cites calls not answered/disconnected and his subsequent emotional reaction | Defendants identify undisputed facts and argue plaintiffs cite no evidence meeting legal elements (outrageousness; viewing/temporal proximity) | Court: Plaintiffs failed to identify material factual disputes or legal bases to defeat summary judgment; claims dismissed as to Olon |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary-judgment burden and shifting framework)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (definition of genuine dispute of material fact)
- White v. Monsanto Co., 585 So.2d 1205 (Louisiana standard for "extreme and outrageous" conduct in intentional-infliction claims)
- Rice v. ReliaStar Life Ins. Co., 770 F.3d 1122 (elements for intentional infliction under Louisiana law)
- Kipps v. Caillier, 197 F.3d 765 (elements and interpretation of La. Civ. Code art. 2315.6)
- Morris v. Dillard Dep't Stores, 277 F.3d 743 (Fifth Circuit noting Louisiana's high threshold for outrageous conduct)