250 So. 3d 1004
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- Holmes found a stray dog at his home, posted on Facebook, and later gave the dog to Lori Williams. Williams later said the dog ran away but actually gave it away. The dog belonged to Tommy Lea.
- Lea, believing his dog missing and not receiving contact from Holmes, reported the matter to Deputy Kevin Garig; Garig filed an affidavit and obtained an arrest warrant for Holmes for theft of an animal. Holmes was later acquitted.
- Holmes sued Lea and Garig for defamation (libel/slander) and for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, alleging false/malicious statements and collusion to have him arrested. Claims against Garig were later dismissed.
- Lea moved for summary judgment asserting Holmes could not prove defamation or emotional distress; the trial court granted summary judgment for Lea and dismissed all claims. Holmes appealed.
- On de novo review, the court found Lea’s report to law enforcement conditionally privileged based on a good-faith belief of possible theft, that Lea’s voicemail and conduct were not extreme/outrageous as a matter of law, and that Holmes failed to show severe or sufficient emotional injury or duty-breach for negligent IIED. Summary judgment was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Defamation (report to deputy) | Lea falsely accused Holmes of theft and acted maliciously; privilege does not apply. | Lea reported in good faith to proper authority based on Holmes’ lack of communication about the dog; conditional privilege applies. | Court: Lea’s report was conditionally privileged; no genuine issue of material fact on defamation. |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress | Lea’s threatening voicemail and use of trooper status were extreme/outrageous and intended to cause severe distress. | Voicemail was provocative but not extreme/outrageous; no evidence Lea abused authority or intended severe distress. | Court: Conduct not extreme/outrageous; single threatening voicemail insufficient; summary judgment proper. |
| Negligent infliction of emotional distress | Holmes suffered anxiety (prescription) from arrest and voicemail; duty and breach exist. | No breach of duty: Lea had good-faith basis to report; Holmes’ emotional injury not shown to be severe or within scope of protection. | Court: Holmes failed duty-risk elements and did not show severe mental anguish; summary judgment proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kennedy v. Sheriff of East Baton Rouge, 935 So.2d 669 (La. 2006) (elements of defamation and conditional privilege framework)
- White v. Monsanto Co., 585 So.2d 1205 (La. 1991) (standard for extreme and outrageous conduct for IIED)
- Perrone v. Rogers, 234 So.3d 153 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2017) (summary judgment appropriate on IIED where conduct insufficiently extreme)
- Moresi v. State, Dept. of Wildlife & Fisheries, 567 So.2d 1081 (La. 1990) (limitation on recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress; need for especial likelihood of serious mental distress)