Melanie (Currie) Steadman v. Steven Pagels, 125 A.3d 713

Steadman (born 1986) sued her father, Steven Pagels, for sexual assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED), arising from repeated abuse that began when she was a child and escalated into forcible intercourse and threats.
Steadman reported some conduct in 2001; mother removed her from the home; mother later reconciled with Pagels. Steadman suffered long-term psychiatric harms and addiction; Social Security found her fully disabled.
Before trial, Pagels moved to exclude evidence of prior sexualized acts with other females. The court allowed limited 404(b) evidence showing pattern, motive, opportunity, and timing (contacts when other victims were under 18; statements by Pagels).
At a three-day bench trial, Steadman testified and introduced testimony from (a) her half-sister (deposition) that Pagels sexually assaulted the half-sister as an adolescent, (b) Pagels’s sister (testified to assaults in the 1970s), and (c) a former babysitter (uneasy touching and a solicitation). The court admitted some of this evidence for non-propensity purposes.
The District Court found Pagels liable on all three tort claims, awarded special damages for past medical care, future counseling, and lost earnings, $1.3 million in general damages, and $500,000 punitive damages; the court’s findings expressly relied on the half-sister’s testimony but did not reference Pagels’s sister or the babysitter.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether testimony about Pagels’s prior bad acts was admissible under M.R. Evid. 404(b)	Steadman: prior-act testimony was admissible to show motive, opportunity, pattern, and chronology of abuse (non-propensity uses).	Pagels: the prior-act evidence was improper character/propensity evidence and unfairly prejudicial under Rules 404(b) and 403.	Court: admission of the half-sister’s deposition was proper for non-propensity purposes and not prejudicial; testimony by Pagels’s sister and one babysitter, even if erroneous, was not relied on and any error was harmless.
Whether NIED liability was improper or produced double recovery because IIED was also found	Steadman: evidence supports independent NIED claim based on custodial parent–child special relationship and resulting severe emotional harm.	Pagels: NIED is subsumed by IIED; awarding both produced a double recovery.	Court: NIED viable because parent–child special relationship created duty; evidence supported NIED elements; judgment awarded a single comprehensive damages award, not double recovery; appellate review declined on preservedness grounds for some arguments.

Jacob v. Kippax, 10 A.3d 1159 (Me. 2011) (appellate review standard—view evidence in light most favorable to prevailing party)
State v. DeLong, 505 A.2d 803 (Me. 1986) (Rule 404(b) permits non-propensity purposes such as motive and intent)
In re Rachel J., 804 A.2d 418 (Me. 2002) (examples of permissible purposes under Rule 404(b))
State v. Larson, 577 A.2d 767 (Me. 1990) (factfinder presumed to consider admissible evidence for proper purpose only)
State v. Lockhart, 830 A.2d 433 (Me. 2003) (Rule 403 balancing after Rule 404 analysis)
Curtis v. Porter, 784 A.2d 18 (Me. 2001) (standards for NIED and special-relationship requirement)