Sutton v. Tacoma School District No. 10
324 P.3d 763
Wash. Ct. App.2014Background
- First-grade special-education student (NYY) was in the Therapeutic Learning Center; teacher Jeffrey Frederick was her instructor and Linda Brieger was a paraprofessional present.
- On Jan. 14, 2011, Rose Sutton (grandmother) witnessed Frederick loudly berating NYY, allegedly towering over her, bumping his chest against her, and pinning her against a wall; Sutton later said NYY’s face was covered with saliva.
- Sutton sued Tacoma School District and Frederick for battery, assault, and outrage (intentional infliction of emotional distress); Frederick and Brieger supplied a sharply different account and Frederick denied contact.
- The School District moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted it, finding Sutton failed to show intent; Sutton appealed.
- The appellate court reviewed summary judgment de novo, treated Sutton’s eyewitness testimony as true for purposes of the motion, and evaluated whether genuine issues of material fact existed on each tort claim.
- Court reversed summary judgment as to battery and assault (questions of fact on offensive contact and apprehension/intent) and affirmed as to outrage (no evidence of severe emotional distress).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Battery — whether Frederick committed an intentional offensive touching | Sutton: eyewitness testimony shows Frederick bumped/pinned NYY, creating offensive contact and intent to cause contact | School Dist.: Sutton’s statements are self‑serving/inconsistent and no evidence of intent to cause contact | Reversed — genuine factual dispute exists on offensive contact and intent (but not on alleged spitting) |
| Assault — whether Frederick intended to put NYY in imminent apprehension of offensive contact | Sutton: conduct (towering, pinning, yelling) supports inference of intent and that a young child would apprehend imminent contact | School Dist.: no evidence of NYY’s contemporaneous apprehension or of intent | Reversed — reasonable inferences permit a jury to find assault |
| Outrage (IIED) — whether conduct was extreme/outrageous and caused severe emotional distress | Sutton: conduct was extreme (adult teacher berating and physically cornering a vulnerable child), and NYY was traumatized | School Dist.: no admissible evidence that NYY suffered severe, more‑than‑transient emotional distress | Affirmed — conduct could be outrageous, but no evidence of severe emotional distress; summary judgment proper |
| Damages — whether plaintiff showed compensable injury | Sutton: seeks relief on torts; did not present affirmative evidence of damages for assault/battery; alleged distress for outrage | School Dist.: absence of evidence of actual damages or severe distress | Not decided in detail — court notes damages not element of assault/battery for summary judgment; damages questions left for trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Loeffelholz v. Univ. of Wash., 175 Wn.2d 264 (standards for appellate review of summary judgment)
- Lakey v. Puget Sound Energy, Inc., 176 Wn.2d 909 (drawing inferences for nonmoving party)
- Garratt v. Dailey, 46 Wn.2d 197 (intent required for battery is intent to cause contact)
- McKinney v. City of Tukwila, 103 Wn. App. 391 (definition of battery quoting Prosser)
- Morinaga v. Vue, 85 Wn. App. 822 (battery elements)
- Brower v. Ackerley, 88 Wn. App. 87 (assault and inference of severe distress from prolonged harassment)
- Kloepfel v. Bokor, 149 Wn.2d 192 (elements of outrage and severe emotional distress requirement)