Marsden Threatened Rob Jr. with Being Thrown to Hell - Research Paper Example

MEMORANDUM OF LAW SHORT ANSWER: Yes. The Sherman family can sue Tom Marsden and the Church of Divine Light for tort. Rob Jr. can sue for intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress against Marsden with technical assault for frightening him with the idea of hell to compel him to stay with the Church and leave home. On the other hand, Mr. and Mrs. Sherman can bring an action for tort on the ground of negligent infliction of emotional distress against Tom Marsden for the extreme anxiety they felt on Rob’s leaving home without their permission. Alternatively, the parties can also bring an action against the Church of Divine Light for vicarious liability, being the employer of Tom Marsden. DISCUSSION: The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress has three elements: outrageous conduct by the tortfeasor; conduct that causes severe mental anguish in the victim and; the mental anguish suffered by the victim because of such behavior. On the other hand, reckless infliction of emotional distress shares all the other elements as the intentional type except that there was no intent to cause the distress (Buckley 130). The element of “outrageous conduct” refers to behavior that is so outlandish or highly offensive as to result in the emotional distress of the victim. An example would be the case of Clifford v Hollander 6 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2201 (NY Civ CT 1980) where the defendant published a picture in a pornographic magazine and deliberately incorrectly identified it as the plaintiff, who was a freelance journalist. As a result, the plaintiff received obscene telephone calls from obviously disturbed individuals. In another case, Martin v Municipal Publications, 510 F. Supp. 255, 259 (ED Pa 1981), the defendant published a picture which he labeled as “closet transvestites who got stinking drunk.” In both cases, the court ruled that the actions of the defendants can be classified as “outrageous.” It is also important that in intentional infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff should be able to prove that the conduct of the defendant was intentional and that he so behaved deliberately so as to cause mental anguish on the victim. In some cases, this element came into conflict with the First Amendment “freedom of speech” as what happened in the celebrated case of Hustler Magazine v Falwell 485 US 46 (1988), where a Protestant Minister brought an action against Hustler Magazine, which, as a parody, featured him as having an incestuous rendezvous with his mother in an outhouse. The Court turned down the plaintiff’s argument on the ground that he was a public figure and therefore as such may not sue for intentional infliction of emotional distress unless he can prove its falsity or that it was done in reckless disregard for the truth. The IIED also requires that the victim actually suffers emotional distress which can be manifested either physically or mentally. These in turn can be manifested in the following symptoms: loss of sleep; loss of weight and appetite; illnesses; tremors, twitches and sensitivity to noise or light. In the case of Mitchell v Globe International Publishing, Inc. 817 F. Supp. 72 (WD Ark 1993), a newspaper used the picture of a 96-year old woman to depict a story of an Australian woman who got pregnant by a reclusive millionaire. The Court awarded the 96-year old woman compensatory as well as punitive damages amounting to more than a billion dollars on the ground of IIED. In the present case, Tom Marsden’s behavior can be characterized as outrageous and intentional and as a result of which Rob Jr. suffered mental anguish. Marsden’s conduct was outrageous because he frightened the boy enough for the latter to leave home and stay in the Church. This is a serious misconduct and an unacceptable behavior on the part of Marsden especially because it involved an impressionable minor. There is no doubt that what he did was intentional to frighten Rob so that he can manipulate him. It is also evident that Rob was seriously affected because he did what most boys his age would not have done under ordinary circumstances: running away from home. In one almost parallel case, the Court made a finding of IIED in favor of an individual who was forced to join an association for fear that its members will harm him and declared such conduct technical assault. In the case of Rubbish Collectors Association v Siliznoff, 38 Cal 2d 330, 240 P 2d 282 (1952), the Court award damages to a person who suffered extreme fright to the extent that he was forced to enlist himself as member of the group because its members made him emotionally distressed. In this case, a person and his son-in-law entered into an agreement with a company to collect its garbage. The previous person with whom the company contracted lost the contract because the former was dissatisfied with his work. Upon learning that the company did not renew his contract with it, the man went to his rubbish collectors association, of which the father-in-law was also a member, and complained that the father-in-law violated the association’s ruling that no co-member should take another member’s account. When summoned, the father-in-law admitted that the account was really for his son-in-law who was not a member of the association and that he only meant to assist him. After meeting the members of the association several times, the son-in-law was prevailed to join it and pay the penalty for taking another member’s account. When he later reneged with the payment, the association brought an action against him. He brought a counter-complaint claiming that that he was under duress when he agreed to join the association and forced to sign the agreement to pay because the members were threatening him in several ways at various times. The Court held that the conduct of the members of the association can be termed as technical assault because they subjected the son-in-law to intentional serious threats that he suffered from extreme mental distress and was forced to agree to their demands such as enlistment in the association and promising to pay the penalty. Citing s 46 of the Restatement of Torts of 1947, which attaches liability to a person who is guilty of causing another severe emotional distress as well as for any bodily harm that might result from such emotional distress, the Court declared that it would be anomalous to deny recovery for damages when mental suffering is the major element of the damages (Rubbish Collectors Association v Siliznoff, 38 Cal 2d 330, 240 P 2d 282 [1952]). What the aforementioned case implies is that when emotional distress is accompanied by another independent tort, the court will not hesitate to grant recovery of damages. In the present case, Marsden placed fear intentionally on the young mind of Rob Jr. by threatening him with the idea of being thrown to hell if he does not stay with the Church of the Divine Light precisely to force him to stay. Although this may not have the same effect on adults, this could cause great emotional and mental distress on an impressionable mind such as Rob’s. This could amount to technical assault – the infliction of bodily threat on another. The fact that the 15-year old Rob Jr. stayed with the Church and left home implies that he believed that the threat of being thrown into hell was real. The Court in that case stressed that a person must be free from “serious, intentional and unprivileged invasions of emotional and mental tranquility” (Rubbish Collectors Association v Siliznoff, 38 Cal 2d 330, 240 P 2d 282 [1952]). Punitive damages, as awarded in this case, are recoverable when the conduct of the defendant is considered ‘outrageous’ and in this sense, this award is in the nature of punishment (Kayser 2001 180). . Mr. and Mrs. Sherman can also bring an action against Tom Marsden for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The intent to inflict distress was meant for Rob Jr. but Mr. and Mrs. Sherman, being the parents of the minor, were also placed in severe emotional distress, because of the anxiety they felt for their son who had left home. Negligent infliction of emotional distress parallels the elements of IIED except that intent is not important. Marsden should have foreseen or realized that by keeping Rob Jr. hostage in the Church of Divine Light by scaring him with the idea of hell, he is inflicting emotional distress on his parents who are deprived of supervising and looking after the welfare of their minor son. In Rubenstein v New York Post 9 Media L Rep (BNA) 1581 (NY Sup Ct 1983), the Court sustained the plaintiff’s contention of negligent infliction of emotional distress when the New York Post published negligently a notice of his death. In addition, Mr. and Mrs. Sherman and Rob Jr., through his parents, can also bring an action against the Church of Divine Light for vicarious liability as Marsden’s direct superior. According to RR Cummins “The doctrine of vicarious liability is a body of tort law based on the principles of negligence. The relationship between the parties determines the liability of one person for the harmful conduct of another. Vicarious simply means the substitution of one person for another. Applied to the doctrine of vicarious liability, it is the substitution of one person for the liability of another” (cited Kayser 2001 177). Although vicarious liability has common application in the employment sphere, it can also be used in cases of joint enterprise or where one is not exactly an employee but is given the authority, express or implied, to act for the others and the primary element of community of purpose is present (Kayser 2001 177). In a case decided in Canada, the Canadian court ruled that the Catholic Church is liable for the sexual abuse committed by its priests. In Doe v Bennett [2004] 1 SCR 436, 2004 SSC 17, the Court held that this vicarious liability of the Church for its priests stem from the fact that the relationship between the two is not only spiritual but also secular, in the sense that the Church follows a structural hierarchy system that allows a higher official supervision over its priests. CONCLUSION: Tom Marsden and jointly, the Church of the Divine Light, by reason of its temporal relation over Marsden, should be held liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress over the minor, Rob Jr. This is because Marsden threatened Rob Jr. with being thrown to hell if the latter does not stay in the Church. Evidently, this distressed Rob Jr., who is obviously impressionable and gullible, and seriously took this threat as real and forced him to leave his parents and stay with the Church. The behavior of Marsden is unacceptable and outrageous considering that Rob Jr. is still a minor and can easily be frightened. It is also possible to recover punitive damages on the ground of Marsden’s behavior as was done in a case. On the other hand, Mr. and Mrs. Sherman, as parents of Rob Jr. could bring an action against Marsden for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Rob Jr. is a minor and therefore, is still in the care of his parents and his leaving home naturally distressed the parents. Marsden should have foreseen that forcing Rob Jr. to stay with the Church without his parents’ blessings would naturally cause anxiety and extreme distress to them, as it would any other parents. Alternatively, the parties could bring a case of tort on the ground of vicarious liability against the Church of Divine Light, it being the employer, the supervising body and if not, as associates of Marsden operating for the same purpose as he was. Works Cited: Buckley, William and Okrent, Cathy. Torts and Personal Injury Law, 3rd Edition. Cengage Learning, 2003. Clifford v Hollander 6 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2201 (NY Civ CT 1980). Doe v Bennett [2004] 1 SCR 436, 2004 SSC 17. Hustler Magazine v Falwell 485 US 46 (1988), Kayser, Valerie (2001). Launching Space Objects: Issues of Liability and Future Prospects, Springer. Martin v Municipal Publications, 510 F. Supp. 255, 259 (ED Pa 1981). Mitchell v Globe International Publishing, Inc. 817 F. Supp. 72 (WD Ark 1993). Perle, Gabriel & Fischer, Mark & Taylor, John (1999). Perle & Williams on Publishing Law, 3rd Edition. Aspen Publishers Online. Rubbish Collectors Association v Siliznoff, 38 Cal 2d 330, 240 P 2d 282 (1952). Rubenstein v New York Post 9 Media L Rep (BNA) 1581 (NY Sup Ct 1983). Read More