Section 11 Specific Intent Requirement and Related Claims

• Library: Damages 2012

The facts supporting an independent cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress must establish that a defendant committed an outrageous act for the sole purpose of causing emotional distress, not for another purpose on which another intentional tort could be based.

Missouri courts strictly apply the specific intent requirement to intentional infliction of emotional distress claims to prevent them from bypassing other theories of recovery. SeeSansonetti v. City of St. Joseph, 976 S.W.2d 572 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998) (intentional infliction of emotional distress claims were “intended to supplement existing forms of recovery, not swallow them” (quoting K.G. v. R.T.R., 918 S.W.2d 795, 799 (Mo. banc 1996)).

The defendants in Sansonetti, 976 S.W.2d 572, included a police officer and a suspect, who were involved in a high-speed chase, and Allstate Insurance Company. Id. at 575. The high-speed chase ended when the suspect crashed his car into the plaintiff’s house. Id. at 576. The plaintiff’s mother brought an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against the defendants on the plaintiff’s behalf. The court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment against the plaintiff on that claim, finding that the plaintiff’s allegations did not support an inference that the sole purpose of the defendants’ conduct was to cause the 11‑month‑old plaintiff emotional distress. Id. at 577.

In K.G., 918 S.W.2d at 799, the Supreme Court of Missouri strictly applied the specific intent requirement to an action involving sexual battery. The plaintiff sued her father for sexual battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress that she alleged occurred when she was a child. The Court found that the statute of limitations for her sexual battery claim had run...