William E. Raftery, Sr. v. Katheryn Girvin Scott

jury “[tjhere require- conclude this cau- tioned the that no strange indeed to any produce any very violates the consti- ment that defendant evi- tionary instruction pro- (J.A. 167). testify provision any intended case.” tutional dence 339, reasons, Id. 98 S.Ct. at 1095. any tect.” at effects from the For these misplaced court’s number district of wit- protective given in instruction Like benign. undeniably instruction were nesses Lakeside, the of witnesses instruc- number protect is intended to defendants tion giv- courts refrain from testify fewer witnesses frequently have ing a number witnesses instruction when government in- adverse than no In this the defendant has witnesses. might be from this ferences that drawn however, persuaded we are Further, the defendant in Lakeside fact. instruction number of witnesses was nei- in- objected protective to the trial court’s ther a violation of defendants’ fifth amend- feared the in- because he struction rights ment nor error. reversible draw needless attention struction would Accordingly, the decision of the district 339-40, testify. Id. failure to at court is This is the concern at 1094-95. same S.Ct. AFFIRMED. they object- the defendants had when instruction to the number of witnesses ed Consequently, chal-

given below. did not defend-

lenged instruction violate privilege against compulsory self-in-

ants’ guaranteed by fifth and

crimination

fourteenth amendments. in-

Viewing the number witnesses context, also con- struction its entire we RAFTERY, Sr., Appellee, E. William harmless clude that this instruction was unlikely any jury error. it is ever fail to notice that the defend- would SCOTT, Katheryn Appellant. Girvin Sec- produced ants no witnesses at trial. No. 84-1052. ond, greater to a prejudice there is no in- from a number defendant witnesses Appeals, Court of United States given he no witnesses struction when Fourth Circuit. government compared has two Argued Oct. 1984. single has a witness when defendant government has ten witnesses Decided March Nevertheless, the defendants’ available. in- argument presumes that the former error, constitute reversible

struction would the latter would be considered

while Third, possible prejudice at all.

error number

resulting from the of witnesses the dis- was lessened because

instruction same

trict court informed large government’s

instruction that need con-

number witnesses (J.A. 173). Fi- “persuasive at all.”

sidered cau- repeatedly the district court

nally, absurdity.” Regarding question, Judge to an Learned doctrine self-incrimination this same States, (2d It is no doubt better if a de- Hand answered: Becher v. United 5 F.2d Cir. charge subject, requests upon 1924), denied, fendant cert. 267 U.S. S.Ct. it; nothing judge say but to (1925). trial about L.Ed. 808 does, error, say it is that when he carries

Michael, sitting Judge, District des-

ignation, opinion. concurred and filed Kunstler, M. City

William New York (Kunstler Mason, City, & New on York brief), appellant. for El-Amin, Richmond, (Sa’ad El- Sa’ad Va. Associates, Va., Richmond, Amin & brief), appellee. MURNAGHAN, HALL and

Before Cir- MICHAEL, Judges, cuit States United Judge for the Western District of sitting Virginia, by designation. MURNAGHAN, Judge. Circuit diversity brought by case a New citizen, Sr., York William Raftery, E. Virginia citizen, against a Katheryn Girvin Scott, the United States District Court the Eastern District of against verdict returned a defendant $40,000 $10,- compensatory damages and punitive damages. 000 in formerly The and defendant had been married to one During another. their marriage year seven one William E. Jr., Raftery, July testimony There was from a psychologist was born May Raftery who treated that he pend- while a divorce decree was suffered from wife, depression” triggered by “reactive ing, the former left the state of mother’s “conduct toward the son and York the child. New The divorce de- cree, 6, 1977, promulgated on June [the son].” custody month later awarded of the son to Following August hearing, Raftery during testified Scott. trial County Henrico court ordered a reevalua- that he had to below been unable establish by tion the Mental Health Clinic. Sep- On until Scott’s whereabouts December 1981 13, tember 1983 the clinical director recom- when he learned that she had remarried Raftery longer mended that “no have visi- up County, and taken residence in Henrico impact tation because of the emotional it Virginia. According Raftery’s testimo- on the child.” engaged in ny, he had efforts to learn Subsequently, 1983, in December Scott’s whereabouts because of his desire state court per- decided to issue an order parent/child relationship to foster a visitation, mitting structured with both son, nearly years seven who was old Raftery seeking psychiatric Scott eval- late 1981. uations. Those decisions taken in Decem- Raftery February In 1982 sued in the effectuated, 1983 ber have not been how- County of Henrico Circuit Court enforce ever, because of the imminence of trial in provisions visitation of the New York di- action, present Raftery sought in which In her answer to com- vorce decree. damages for intentional infliction of mental opposed rights in plaint, Scott visitation distress. The case had been commenced Raftery, claiming negative that it would be Raftery February 1983 and was long for the child to see him after the January through tried to a 3 Janu- which, separation. According to evidence ary 1984. There clearly was evidence stage proceedings, following at this sufficient to establish that the former wife plaintiff, a verdict for the we must con- engaged continuing had and successful destroy prevent strue a manner most favorable to the effort to and to rehabilita- plaintiff, per- relationship the former wife succeeded in tion of the between the former suading appeal the son that he should and their son. The not see his husband concen- claims, asserting A trates County father. clinician at the Henrico on two neither Center, during Mental Health error occurred the course of to whom the matter trial, each, rather, disputing propriety had referred County been the Henrico having of the case’s come to hearing after trial court on October place. first might so that the best interests of the child ascertained, concluded, following three it is contended that meetings that she was “un- exception domestic apply relations any positive able to introduce ideas about entirely diversity jurisdic to defeat way his father or in a visitation However, relationship tion. the domestic accept overwhelming child due to the could parties largely between terminated negative amount of material he has heard divorce, with the 1977 and the suit concerns about father and visitation.” implementation not the establishment and February, May, July but, rather, rights June and of visitation seeks an attempts damages

there followed at structured precisely visits award of because of the father and the son. There between acts the former wife to frustrate what hearing August then ensued a court aspects ever domestic relations remained of growing out of an altercation between her with her former husband. Raftery and Albert the defendant’s If someone who had never been married to hearing, aunt, At the court Raftery, new husband. member such as an speak to his father either in grandparent son refused a cousin or a or even a nonre hearing had concluded. babysitter, court after lative such as a child nurse or right to the cus- plaintiff’s destroying the set about society of her three minor chil- son, tody and any cause father and his dren, the district court over which arising such behavior a matter out of of action hearing in exercisable once state jurisdiction, foreclosed from a did have would concluded). partook of some were custody proceedings because federal court in Cole v. intra-family aspects. As held jurisdiction lacking.2 Consequently, Cir.1980): (4th F.2d therefore, We, proceed second issue to the simply avoid court A district is made that by Scott. The claim presented intrafamily having as- diversity cases all by Raftery proof and the at assertions consider the exact pects. Rather it must really only “alienation of trial demonstrate rights or of asserted nature parent. the child for the the affection” of alleged.1 breaches develop asserted de- attempting that, rose, Wasserman, fense, F.2d argues even as the Scott In Wasserman Cir.1982), (4th held: by any we affection other name 834-35 alienation of descriptive still the same. Use other of child enticement [H]owever, the torts “in- language for the tort involved such as emotional dis- infliction of and intentional distress” or way dependent on a infliction of emotional in no tentional tress are relationship____ “wanton, family conduct de- or'prior malicious willful present not seek- appellant companionship importantly, priv[ing] Raftery Most of the not, entitlement to cus- ing a determination of couple’s of the minor son” should care family adjustment of tody or other claims, escape provi- permit from the she status____ Virginia of the statute. Ann.Code sions § (1981). The statute 8.01-220 requiring by a federal court not A decision arising eliminated the causes of action has family or estab adjustment of status a) 1968 for alienation on or after June determining the lishing familial duties or affection, b) marry, promise to breach duties, does existence of a breach c) By subsequent criminal conversation. or relations ex not contravene the domestic addition, provision abrogates the the code diversity ception jurisdiction. to federal arising for events action for seduction civil County Dept. Kelser v. Anne Arundel July Both Services, (4th or after 1974. 679 F.2d 1092 Cir. Social case, that accepted, purposes of the 1982)(the by the deprivation action claimed father, brought against Raftery only then Paraphrasing language in Cole v. 1. exclusively duty seeking or abro- court mone- "The gation to abstain suit in federal [curtailment parent/child relationship par- or even tary relief. The domestic relations affected, for his fa- the alienation of a child's affection regardless of wheth- would not be ties er, require, in order does not arise out of or merits, ther] to relation[ship].” Raftery should win or lose. on the duty, present prior give or rise to the a tort, arguably a and she committed Scott might poorer if that were established in court be case). (as ultimately Payment of a was the acknowledging concurring opinion, while .The however, reasonably judgment, be cate- cannot law, in Cole as it has been laid down gorized involving act a domestic relation- as an result, Wasserman, permits ex- no other apt ship. are to be Most individual defendants presses has been a concern that the diversity They escape federal married. cannot serenely past given the bar of “a ticket to ride asserting jurisdiction simply by that their wives That, us, exception." to the domestic relations they pay, upset to or that if are forced will appears to overlooked two considerations: have relationship plaintiffs will be with the their (1) Raftery year sued in federal A before worsened. of emotional dis- court for intentional infliction tress, Raftery by an automobile court, Had been struck he claimed in a goods had he sold her driven sought a only which would affect relief he time, fully pay, the one readjustment which she refused of the domestic sought parties. of visitation He enforcement of husband and wife terminated which, rights decree, a state court in contravention of preclude have sufficed to would not had been denied him Scott. diversity jurisdiction. adjust (2) which would the domes- With relief possibility relationship apparently a remote tic turning the son of Scott’s success because alienation of affection could not be a recovery basis bar to of the stolen funds from the malefactor. recovery.3 put things To somewhat differently However, Raftery position took the might there in the instant ease have been independently supported facts no diminution in the son’s affection for the claim for intentional infliction of emotional Yet, realizing father. the father was distress, persuaded and we are position that he is provide home, him a appreciating custody correct.4 had been The fact that a award tort have mother, ed to the might the son have con overtones of affection alienation does not cluded that his best interests dictated a recovery separate on the bar and distinct display by him of an assumed indifference accompanying wrongdoing. For example, towards, for, even dislike his father might money owe substantial sum of make life more tolerable at home. The long-time to a party friend. If a third were physical unwarranted breach in the rela money pay debt, to abscond tionship resulting and its impact adverse preventing obligation, satisfaction of the the father would have entitled Raftery to while the friend’s affection could well be damages, some even if the affection of his alienated, that fact would not constitute a son for him remained unabated.5 We, therefore, investigate erable, have wrongful no occasion to conduct and the emotional statute, indeed, whether the reaches alienation causally distress are connected and the emotion- child, especially of the affection of a one of the al distress Eldridge, is severe. Womack v. sex, applying only same rather than to aliena (1974). Va. 210 S.E.2d 145 To recover for opposite tion of the affection of an adult of the affection, the tort of alienation of at least as it However, sex. promise it should be noted that breach of prior abolition, statutory existed to the 1968 marry and criminal conversation outrageous and intolerable conduct or a show- (and, incidentally, well) seduction as concern ing of pre- severe emotional distress were not relationships such ly between adults not necessari Instead, requisites recovery. plaintiff for a customarily applica or related blood and only (meaning unjusti- need show a “malicious” (of tion of the doctrine of noscitur a sociis fiable) interference or an intention that such ejusdem generis sub-species) suggests which is a interference result in the loss of affection. An- affection, that ployed the term alienation of as em notation, Right Child or Parent to Recover of for statute, similarly in the is so restricted. 931, Affections, Alienation Other’s 60 A.L.R.3d Therefore, may there well remain still viable in (1974), Gleason, citing 939 Strode v. 9 Wash. Virginia a claim for alienation of the affection 13, (1973) App. (allowing compen- 510 P.2d 250 child, prior of one’s if indeed one existed satory damages against party a third who mali- See, however, Schuppin June 1968. v. Unifi ciously alienated the affections of a minor Church, (D.Vt.1977). F.Supp. cation 435 child). Unlike the tort of intentional infliction Moreover, indeed, a cause of action for alien- distress, of emotional alienation of affection may ation of the affection of one’s child have required existing also has an relation- being Virginia first come into after June ship. generally, Jurisprudence See 9B Michie’s may prior 1968. It well not have existed to that (1984); and West § date. Restatement Torts 2d 699. See Coulter § Hence, only A.L.R.3d not are the Coulter, 144, 150, v. 73 Colo. 214 P. different, elements of the two causes of action (1923) ("No authority brought has been to our but intentional infliction of emotional distress attention that an action for alienation of affec- implies higher proof a burden of than alienation exists, of, except growing tions as out or con- here, therefore, of affection. We have merely not with, relation.”). marriage nected In that (alienation solitary affection) a rose hardly case the statute could be held to be a bar. addition, bouquet containing, but rather a passage, at time of Non-existent the act’s a tulip of intentional infliction of emotional dis- unlikely cause of action would be to have been tress. However, target. its pursue we have no occasion to possibility. argument 5. An that there should be a retrial to assume, case, may purposes We for of the effect a reduction in the amounts of the com- an action for alienation of the affection of a son verdicts, pensatory punitive and to strike out brought statute, abrogated by a father has been parts might wrongly thereof as calculat- place. or never existed in the first affection, ed with reference to alienation of irre- spective argument Intentional infliction of emotional distress whether otherwise has any validity, open opted and of affection are alienation two distinct caus- to Scott. She for former, nothing approach es of action. Under the a must an all or and . not assert a reckless, only establish that the is or recovery appro- tort intentional claim that some of the was outrageous priate. the tort-feasor's conduct is and intol- parent which tionship between an Without, way, suggesting to find in permitted the evidence be maintained could action the son remedy were there the instant conse- the adverse against the mother for as a result was parent to a available be- rupture she occasioned quences us damaged strikes as psychologically son,6 clear father still seems tween society. danger to potentially more reason, that, alto- for some absent bar af- independent of the alienation gether properly sub- Accordingly, the case was contention, of action should a cause having fection jury, no error mitted to damage flowing from psychological lie for the evidence respect been claimed father, from the separation enforced instructions, of the amounts if even, or, indeed, especially the affection pu- compensatory damages and for verdict abated, way an father in no being reasonably related to damages nitive Thus, if such plausible possibility. entirely proven, judgment the tort asserted maintainable, the action were indeed an below supposed way be the would in no reason AFFIRMED. one for alienation similarity of claim to of affection. MICHAEL, Judge, concurring. public policy ar- Finally, Scott asserts positive of the because psy- suffer from that a child will gument governing this matter of the law statement in the if he is cast chological adversities Cole, 633 v. the Fourth Circuit Cole greed inspired by pawn in a battle role (4th Cir.1980), the doctrine as F.2d 1083 parents. She filthy lucre of one in briefer was reaffirmed there laid out permit resuscitation urges that we not Wasserman, 671 form in Wasserman alienation of affec- outlawed action Cir.1982), (4th constrained to F.2d I am of intention- label tion under substitute majority in the in the result reached concur How- distress. al infliction of emotional This con reluctance. opinion, albeit with ever, the differences characteristics predicated on the fact currence establish, of, two proof and Was clearly set in Cole law is so out premise of the dissipate the recognized torts act that it must be that serman ad- proof must be argument. Sufficient court below are lawyers and the both the infliction and some- it is set rely of intentional on law as out duced entitled to that simply thing aggravation This sits to review much more than in court those cases. and, error, if error make out a case be must be asserted shown cases for implicit Con found, The threat action. distress. to take corrective emotional cases, arising reasoning of Cole light whenever in sidered an avalanche Wasserman, re- did not uncomplimentary and the court below parent an makes case7, other, handling so simply per- err of this in its mark about the That appropriate. be undermining soci- action is by seriously corrective ceived us as case, majority opinion ing joining the the The harm deliberate ety or its laws. be the affirming court below would rela- the and affectionate frustration of a close 27-29, Worrell, Nevertheless, immunity Va. 4 S.E.2d interspousal 174 rell v. in 1981 (1939); Brumfield, by 194 Va. to an end statute. Ann.Va.Code v. came Brumfield 8.01-220.1, 170, 173, (1953); recognition pro- 580-82, signifying the Smith v. § 74 S.E.2d regard 181, 185-86, change conse- found societal to the S.E.2d Kauffman, Va. By quences Gleason, of suits between members. (1971). especially, See Strode majority emanci- time the attains and is the son supra. by pated, limit and within the time established limitations, may appropriate be statute of the charge given noted the the It should be relationship an between determined that the be a jury by well model the court below could not, parent emancipated as son charging charge in a court case for a law, subject to Virginia common so matter distress. See emotional intentional son consequences to bar a suit the adverse as pp. seq. Appendix, et Joint the against especially if the is that claim wilfully maliciously. Wor- parent acted Cf. Virginia, usual—and the more comfortable —course. law of the Commonwealth of the implica Because real concerns as to the previ- factual distinction between the two Cole, Wasserman, the tions of doctrine of signifi- ous the cases and instant case not case, the majority opinion in this con analysis cant in the herein set out. here is an appropri currence result instant the the record shows course, but an require ate those concerns parties without contradiction that the were explication, as set out infra. engaged litigation in domestic relations in disputed it cannot be that in the state courts in in New Wasserman, in in the instant the brought York when State this action was in controversy parties ineluctably between litigation The court. New York origin its in had the domestic discord which in obtaining resulted husband’s a de- developed in between and wife matrimonii, cree of divorce a vinculo in those three cases. This ultimate fact reserving questions court there of visita- ig- three these controversies tion and the proceedings. like further majority opinion nored or overlooked. The In the proceeding, court efforts implicitly acknowledges here the Wasser- being were made the court to determine opinion language to the man effect propriety visitation, of the father’s previous relationship “the marital imposed, terms to litiga- etc. While strong feelings parties presumably and the ongoing courts, tion in was these two relationship as a may associated with that plaintiff charging came forward a suit contributed to un- matter have factual alienation and the tortious offense that the derlying events and the initiation of this engaged wife had in the intentional inflic- suit; (emphasis ...” at 834 Wasserman tion of emotional distress on the added). happened in three What has all It is essentially husband. this latter opinions is that eases Cole and Was- of tort that the case tried in basis was majority opinion serman court below. passed by instant case have this “factual matter” which contributed to the “initiation Certainly, it is hard to envision situa- picked up beyond of this suit” and have likely tion between two more relationship, relegating marital that initiat- create emotional distress than the deterio- ing pattern Having fact to outer darkness. ration of domestic put thus to one side ultimate source a husband wife. It be taken as opinions controversy, go find given deroga- spouse that actions jurisdic- bases the exercise of federal produce tion of the marital will which in tion the view of this concurrence spouse. other an emotional distress strongly undercut malice, Whether action was taken with exception fully developed so previous wilfully to induce such emotional distress in concerning cases the federal courts other, justifica- in the with was taken exception. tion, necessary or at least without the mali- Wasserman, in Cole and the contro- intent, key cious is a determining issue in directly versies were between husband the existence of the tort of intentional in- wife, wife, or former husband and former fliction of emotional distress. asserts, in while instant ease words Any practitioner in the courts effect, in an of the of alienation affections engaged ever domestic relations by a child for its its father actions of clarity work knows awesome the emo- mother, custody being the child in the then impetus tional which such controversies mother, resulting and a intentional generate can parties all the involved in infliction of emotional distress fa- on the litigation. change If one is to by Leaving

ther mother. aside situation in the thorny question shown instant and is of whether alienation recog- the affections child to assume that the are unrelated in was ever by statutory nized at any way, likely jury common law or it is far that a less Bluefield, Bluefield, Virginia, was rates that emotional distress could conclude to find the neces- Virginia, in order the West plaintiff by in the actions of created They may citizenship. diversity of sary arguably purpose for the taken defendant separation, apart after the live two blocks alienating the affections of a child to- Husband-plain- diversity is there. but stranger-plaintiff. this assumed ward in the United States files suit tiff then of the domestic Only because for the Western District Court high parties do we find that between asserting intentional infliction reaction which break- level of emotional question, Without emotional distress. relationship, the con- up of the marital indicate that will then undertake wife may engender parties, of the sequent acts taking malign motive in her no there was brief, if the case is to plaintiff. in a action, taken with mal- that it was not in- of the intentional proceed on the basis ice, etc., ample wilfully, and that she distress, inescap- it is fliction of emotional doing The matter then justification for so. relationship, the former marital able trial, asserting no goes to follow- broken, the actions taken now situation, and with wife assert- fault in this taken into ac- breaking, will be ing that This entirely at fault. ing that he was count. defining a ac- very close to divorce comes a technical basis It is true that on tion, of a suit though brought in the form of emotional tort of intentional alleged Even if seeking for an tort. relief successfully prosecuted distress can be of the that what remains we assume the marital rela- any reference to without Cole, exception after domestic relations Cole, pivot that Was- tion, and it is on this Wasserman, the instant case do not opinion serman, majority and the instant grant the di- federal court to permit the turn. vorce, circumscription the narrow Yet, clearly shows the record below might just as opinions those doctrine domes- of the former was advised go to that district court to permit the well relationship and of the actions tic appro- extent, the evidence essentially since against the toward the child and mother par- determining the status of priate to Only the most the father. interests of before the will then be ties as to divorce honing the differentiation meticulous all, courts still retain After court. three cases sought to be set out these Const., Ill, art. chancery jurisdiction. U.S. logic says support leap which can § 2, Court will be 1. Since the Federal cl. that the domestic applying diversity jurisdiction, sitting with prosecution parties is of moment the law of the Commonwealth of the instant case. only bar to the this assumed remains is whatever granting of a divorce instance, If, assumed that a it is exception after impecunious husband comes somewhat Wasserman, case. the instant evening, to one home to a well-to-do wife and the children advised her that she say scarcely appropriate to It seems him, imagine may easily leaving are occur so pattern will effect that such by any such distress caused worthy the emotional of concern. rarely event, Certainly, it is an intentional event. or one of a rare occasion it will be Whether concerned, and it far as the wife is this writer be- increasing frequency so —which may or clearly that there must to be discerned case—the decision lieves will be the law, for legally cognizable reasons the effects of that may not be on the and on turn If, compli- posed step. to situation taking hypothetical this drastic law. In the her further, the here, pointed out that matter we assume it should also be cate the most, if tranquility in before it in reasonable district court will have parties the lived all, making appropriate to Bluefield, Virginia, bombshell an- not the evidence until this visitation, etc. as findings custody, nouncement, only to move as to has to deter- appropriate evidence sepa- well as the state line which across the invisible question mine whether a divorce should or should of fact the of the domestic rela- granted, parties, noted the supra. principally as tions of as a means showing degree of the intensity and fact, emergence the of the somewhat emotional distress. It is thus difficult to recently tort discovered of “intentional in- see how one can reach the conclusion that of is fliction emotional distress” the cata- do domestic relations not enter into a suit lyst brings these which unfortunate devel- tort, based on this in any case where a opments congruence into one with the oth- spouse, or spouse, former sues the other is er. It even more unfortunate that con- during for following marriage, acts or gruence place will in effect the United which acts are related to the marital rela- position of States Court tionship. Obviously, if the tort is asserted hearing relating all of the evidence to di- by parties are, to have been committed who vorce, custody, alimony, support mon- were, not in a relationship, domestic ey, in connection with a of determination nothing then concerning a rela- domestic the existence or non-existence of the tort tionship comes into the case. the cases and, existence, alleged, assuming fixing Cole, Wasserman, case, of and the instant damages projection of for tort. a Such however, relationships domestic be- Cole, Wasserman, and the instant tween were a part salient markedly case reduces the domestic rela- evidence which jury. went to the exception so long tions which has been More generally speaking, logic if the jurisdiction. properly recognized in federal Cole and followed, Wasserman is to be There are a number of for reasons appears that two inescap- conclusions are exception, previously domestic relations as First, it able. must be concluded that the recognized clearly explicated previ- ignore district court simply one of ous cases. there is the uncontested operative facts in pattern, namely, through fact that the state courts its has dispute of, arose out or was exac- stronger and direct more interest of, break-up erbated the marital domestic of its relations citizens than does Second, parties. between the Second, the federal court. there is the fact by following course, this the courts are throughout so country, far as in- undercutting the domestic excep- relations vestigation disclosed, has each has set sociological view, tion. From point up specialized courts which deal with this be a desirable result. As to this matters, domestic particularly relations in point, majority apparently feels that to They relation children. have vested any result other than the itby one reached jurisdiction their courts over divorce mat- would leave the remedy without ters, ancillary alimony, with matters of tort.8 readily It should not be thus etc., flowing grant jurisdic- from that courts, particularly assumed the state tion. These and factors men- the other jurisdiction, vested conjoin tioned in the cases to indicate that power are without any redress such tort. exception the domestic relations narrowing If such a result the domes- jurisdiction appropriate is a valid exer- exception tic relations be brought part cise of restraint on the of the federal about, it should be done action courts. Congress, whittling rather than alleged If is that the tort of “intentional away process. significant It that Con- juris- gress emotional distress” accepted the domestic relations essentially predicated diversity, exception diction years, over 100 without un- will, then dertaking as in the instant there al- change reduce it or to it in placed inescapably, way. most before the trier dy parent

8. "The harm deliberate frustration of a close available to a aas result was parent psychologically damaged po- affectionate us strikes as more permitted tentially danger society." Majority which the evidence Opin- ion, p. to find in instant were there no reme- gov- to be law If this is continue have, matters, in sim-

erning then we terms, given plaintiff in circum- to the

ple ticket ride se- such as these a

stances rela- the domestic

renely past bar of simple expedient of exception by the

tions emotional

alleging “intentional question is no There

distress”. require of that tort does

proof factor, relations but

proof of domestic certain that these cases equally arises out of the

offense relationship is

relationship and that the probably the salient most

salient factor— degree of showing the emotional

factor—in simply plaintiff. I by the

distress suffered agree plaintiff, future

cannot

cases, circumstances should be under these exception.

permitted avoid the above, law in this set out Circuit

As forced clearly stated that the writer is

is so ma- reached in the

to concur result opinion.

jority

I concur. Shirley ALLEMAN and

James J. Plaintiffs,

Alleman,

v. CORPORATION, al., et

BUNGE

Defendants-Appellants, CO., al., et

REPUBLIC INSURANCE

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 84-3209

Summary Calendar. Appeals,

United States Court

Fifth Circuit. 19, 1984.

Dec.

Case Details

Case Name: William E. Raftery, Sr. v. Katheryn Girvin Scott

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Date Published: Mar 7, 1985

Citation: 756 F.2d 335

Docket Number: 84-1052

Court Abbreviation: 4th Cir.