The complaint, which has been dismissed for insufficiency, contains two causes of action. The first is to recover damages for libel; the second is to recover damages for mental distress and resulting illness alleged tо have been intentionally caused by the defendant.
In the first cause of action, it is alleged that the plaintiff, a native of Turkey, and a citizen of this country, is an unmarried young woman; that plaintiff and defendant had been keeping company for about two years with a view to their ultimate marriage; that while they were still doing so, defendant married another woman without plaintiff’s knowledge, and concealed the marriage from the plaintiff, who discovered it only by accident; that the relations between the parties then ceased, and that defendant thereafter composed and mailed to plaintiff, in an envelope addressed tо Mrs. Vicky Halio, a communication in verse entitled “ An Ode to Vicky ” in which he referred to her
It is further alleged that defendant expected and intended that said missive would cause plaintiff to suffer anguish and emotionаl shock; that it would produce tears and excitement on her part, and other signs of exceptional distress; that it would be received on a Saturday morning, when members of plaintiff’s family would be at home; that such emоtional shock would occur in their presence and would disclose the existence and contents of the document to persons other than plaintiff, because of which defendant had reasonable cause to know that in such manner the document and envelope would become published; and that he sent them to plaintiff with such expectation and intention.
It is further alleged that on receipt of said document plaintiff became visibly agitated and grew hysterical; that by reason thereof the presence and the contents of the document became known to plaintiff’s sister who read it, by reason of which the documеnt and envelope “were published by defendant to a person other than plaintiff ”; that they were published of and concerning plaintiff; that the acts of the defendant were malicious; and that the contents оf the writings were untrue.
The final paragraph of the first cause of action (par. XIV) alleges that the contents of said document and envelope were calculated to and did hold plaintiff up to public shаme, disgrace, ridicule and contempt, and did damage to her reputation.
In the second cause of action plaintiff repeats all of the allegations of the first, except those contained in paragraph XIV. Plaintiff then alleges:
“ That plaintiff was, by the said acts of defendant, made sick, nervous, unable to sleep, and unable to eat and digest her food as before; was compelled to obtain medical aid in an endeavor to restore her health and was made to suffer severe mental anguish, and still suffers the same. ’ ’
No pecuniary damages, however, are alleged.
We are in accord with the view expressed at Special Term that the first cause of aсtion, as pleaded, is clearly insufficient. Except as the plaintiff’s conclusion, it does not appear on the
Since the first cause of action is defective for failure to plead facts which would constitute publication by the defendant, we do not reach the question whether the contents of the communication were libelous per se.
The second cause of action was dismissed because the learned Justice at Special Term considered it an attempt to plead a cause of action founded on a prima facie tort, without alleging that the plaintiff had sustained special damage (cf. Brandt v. Winchell,
The question which must be detеrmined therefore is whether the intentional infliction of serious mental distress without physical impact can constitute an independent tort which is actionable per se. We believe that the question must be answerеd in the affirmative.
No case has been cited, nor have we discovered any in which the precise question has been passed upon by an appellate court in this State, although a similar issue was decided at Special Term, Kings County, in a well-considered opinion by Mr. Justice Hart (Mitran v. Williamson,
There is no lack of authority in this State, however, for the conclusion that there may be a recovery for mental anguish and suffering, and for physical ailments resulting therefrom, unaccompanied by physical contact. Over 60 years ago, Mr. Justice Gayitob,, refеrring to an action for damages for assault, said (Prince v. Ridge,
Prior to Judge Gayitob’s decision it had been held by this court that the rule announced in Mitchell v. Rochester Ry. Co. (
The question remains, however, whether there may be recovery for the intentional infliction of mental distress without proof of the breach of any duty other than the duty to refrain from inflicting it. We see no reason why there should not be. Thеre is a wealth of authority on the question in other jurisdictions, and an examination of the decided cases discloses that in recent years most of the courts which have been presented with the question have rеcognized an independent right to such a recovery (see 64 A. L. R. 2d 119, § 8 and cases cited; Restatement, Torts, 1948 Supp., § 46, p. 616 and eases cited; Prosser, Torts [2d ed.], p. 38 et seq.). In this State it would seem to follow that if damages may be reсovered for mental anguish caused accidentally, they should certainly be recoverable for the same injury caused intentionally.
“ [T]he only valid objection against recovery for mental injury is the danger of vexatious suits and fictitious claims, which has loomed very large in the opinions as an obstacle. The danger is a real one, and must be met. Mental disturbance is easily simulated, and courts which are plagued with fraudulent pеrsonal injury claims may well be unwilling to open the door to an even more dubious field. But the difficulty is not insuperable. Not only fright and shock, but other kinds of mental injury are marked by definite physical symptoms, which are
Thе fact that the pleading here under attack does not fall plainly within the rule announced in some decided case does not require the dismissal of the complaint. The law should never suffer an injury and damage withоut a remedy (Kujek v. Goldman,
We hold only that the second cause of action as pleaded is sufficient. Since the motion was addressed to thе entire complaint, it should have been denied, even though the first cause of action is insufficient on its face (Advance Music Corp. v. American Tobacco Co.,
The order appealed from should be reversed and the motion to dismiss should be denied.
Ughetta, Christ, Pette and Brehhah, JJ., concur.
Order reversed, without costs, and motion to dismiss the complaint denied, without costs. Defendant’s time to answer the complaint is extended until 20 days after entry of the order hereon.