State v. Peterson
2011 ND 109
| N.D. | 2011Background
- G.K.T. sued T.L.T. and T.K. for intentional infliction of emotional distress over actions related to the child’s relationship with the adoptive father.
- The district court granted summary judgment for T.L.T. and dismissed the complaint as a matter of law.
- Plaintiff alleged T.L.T. and T.K. fostered a relationship between the child and T.K. to undermine G.K.T.’s paternity.
- Alleged conduct included threats to tell the child G.K.T. was not her father and other efforts to integrate the child with T.K.’s family.
- G.K.T. claimed emotional distress, sleep loss, heartache, and job loss as a result of the conduct.
- On appeal, the court assumed, for purposes of argument, that intentional infliction of emotional distress could be cognizable in North Dakota when the parent-child relationship is at issue, but held the conduct was not extreme or outrageous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IED can be recognized in this parent-child context. | G.K.T. contends IED is actionable when tied to the parent-child relationship. | T.L.T. and T.K. argue no extreme, outrageous conduct supports IED as a matter of law. | Not reached as issue; assume IED actionable but conduct not extreme/outrageous. |
| Whether the alleged conduct meets the extreme and outrageous standard. | G.K.T. claims threats and interference with the father-daughter relationship were extreme. | Defendants argue the acts do not rise to the level of beyond all possible bounds of decency. | Not extreme/outrageous as a matter of law; affirmed summary judgment. |
| Whether the district court properly applied the Muchow standard in ruling on summary judgment. | G.K.T. asserts genuine issues of material fact exist under Muchow’s standard. | Defendants maintain conduct did not meet the high Muchow threshold. | Court applied Muchow; conduct did not meet threshold. |
Key Cases Cited
- Muchow v. Lindblad, 435 N.W.2d 918 (N.D. 1989) (establishes the extreme and outrageous standard for IED)
- Reimers v. Peters-Riemers, 2004 ND 153 (N.D. 2004) (reiterates Muchow standard and limits on IED recoveries)
- Zuger v. State, 2004 ND 16 (N.D. 2004) (outrageousness must be beyond the bounds of decency)
- Vandall v. Trinity Hospitals, 2004 ND 47 (N.D. 2004) (retaliation claims not sufficiently extreme or outrageous)
- Hougum v. Valley Memorial Homes, 1998 ND 24 (N.D. 1998) (insufficient extreme/outrageous conduct in humiliation cases)
- Lucas v. Riverside Park Condominium Unit Owners Ass’n, 2009 ND 217 (N.D. 2009) (mere insults or trivialities not enough for IED)