Section 13 Recovery for Emotional Distress Through Traditional Torts

LibraryDamages 2012

Emotional distress may be a component of damages caused by a separate, underlying tort. Missouri courts impose a lesser burden on the plaintiff to plead emotional distress as a component of damages than as an independent claim. Signorino v. Nat’l Super Mkts., Inc., 782 S.W.2d 100, 104 (Mo. App. E.D. 1989).

But if the cause of action allows only for pecuniary damages, damages for emotional distress are not available under it. State ex rel. BP Prods. N. Am. Inc. v. Ross, 163 S.W.3d 922, 929 (Mo. banc 2005).

In Signorino, 782 S.W.2d 100, the plaintiff sued a supermarket for false arrest, alleging mental distress. The defendant argued that the plaintiff failed to satisfy the requirements of Bass v. Nooney Co., 646 S.W.2d 765 (Mo. banc 1983), for proving that he sustained damages for emotional distress. The court however, stated that Bass involved a negligence action and, therefore, did not apply to intentional tort cases. Instead, the court held that, in deciding damages in intentional tort cases, “a jury can properly consider such things as embarrassment, disgrace, humiliation, injury to plaintiff’s feelings or reputation, and mental suffering.” Signorino, 782 S.W.2d at 104. Cf. Carlisle v. Kroger Co., 809 S.W.2d 23, 27 (Mo. App. E.D. 1991) (a trial court properly admitted evidence of a plaintiff’s previous arrest for shoplifting when she sued a store that detained her
for emotional distress, alleging that the incident “was the most embarrassing event in her life”).

Likewise, damages under Missouri civil rights laws may include emotional distress. Conway v. Mo. Comm’n on Human Rights, 7 S.W.3d 571, 575 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999) (Bass, 646 S.W.2d 765, is inapplicable to intentional torts and violations of Missouri civil rights laws).

But if the cause of action allows only for pecuniary damages, damages for emotional distress are not available under it. See, e.g.:

Ford v. St. Louis Metro. Towing, L.C., No. 4:09cv0512 TCM, 2010 WL 618491 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 18, 2010) (actions based on violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, Chapter 407, RSMo) Ross, 163 S.W.3d at 929 (injurious falsehood)

Doe v. McFarlane, 207 S.W.3d 52 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006) (right of publicity)

In Ross, 163 S.W.3d at 929, the president of a car wash servicing company brought several claims against a car wash machine manufacturer, alleging emotional distress damages and pecuniary damages after the president was arrested for stealing a car wash machine that the manufacturer did not deliver...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT