Section 4.4 Conduct Deemed to Be Extreme and Outrageous

• Library: Tort Law 2016

C. (§4.4) Conduct Deemed to Be Extreme and Outrageous

The conduct must be so outrageous, and so extreme, that all "bounds of decency" are surpassed and such behavior is "utterly intolerable in a civilized community." Gibson v. Brewer, 952 S.W.2d 239, 249 (Mo. banc 1997) (quoting Warrem v. Parrish, 436 S.W.2d 670, 673 (Mo. 1969)). It should be recognized that "Missouri case law reveals very few factual scenarios sufficient to support a claim for [IIED]." Dunham v. City of O’Fallon, Mo., 945 F. Supp. 1256, 1262 (E.D. Mo. 1996).

The Restatement quantifies the element in a visceral, empathetic human realm, stating extreme and outrageous conduct is present when "the recitation of the facts to an average member of the community would arouse his resentment against the actor, and lead him to exclaim, ‘Outrageous!’" RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 46 cmt. d (1965).

Factual analysis of individual cases determines whether (or not) conduct was "extreme and outrageous." Thornburg v. Fed. Express Corp., 62 S.W.3d 421, 427–28 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001). Accordingly, the following cases introduce facts found to constitute extreme and outrageous conduct:

· Intolerable behavior was present in an undertaker’s reprehensible actions in Golston v. Lincoln Cemetery, Inc., 573 S.W.2d 700 (Mo. App. W.D. 1978). In Golston, the plaintiff arranged for the burial of her deceased sister, contracting for a two-piece vault, headstone, and burial plot at the defendant’s cemetery. But a post-funeral visit to the gravesite revealed the deceased was buried in a shallow grave, without the two-piece vault or headstone, and the deceased was visible from the surface. When the surviving sister saw the face of her deceased sibling, covered in dirt, at the visit, IIED was established.

· In Lichtenfeld v. Trustmark Cos., No. 4:13-CV-02237, 2014 WL 1315236 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 31, 2014), the defendant’s insurance agent sent a letter to the plaintiff notifying him that insurance premiums were now due, and on the next day sent a notice stating that the premium was past due and that the policy had been canceled. The defendant’s agent’s actions were taken despite knowing that the plaintiff was disabled and could not work, and allegedly contrary to Trustmark policies. The court found the actions to be sufficiently extreme and outrageous to survive the pleading stage.

· A disputed automobile repair bill was the heart of the dispute in Warrem, 436 S.W.2d 670. According to the complaint of James and Gaynelle

...