TORTS – Tort of outrage claimed for emergency treatment: Childers v. Geile (COA 11/6/2009)

Childers v. Geile
2008-CA-002114 11/06/09 2009 WL 3672891

Opinion by Judge Stumbo; Judge Lambert and Senior Judge Henry concurred.

The Court affirmed a summary judgment in favor of appellees on appellants’ claim for the tort of outrage related to emergency treatment appellant received, after which she miscarried.

The Court held that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment. In doing so, the Court held that the holdings in Rigazio v. Archdiocese of Louisville, 853 S.W.2d 295 (Ky. App. 1993), and Banks v. Fritsch, 39 S.W.3d 474 (Ky. App. 2001), were not inconsistent with the holding in Craft v. Rice, 671 S.W.2d 247 (Ky. 1984). The cases collectively recognized the application of the tort of outrage in Kentucky to facts where the conduct was intended only to cause extreme emotional distress in the victim, and where those facts would not otherwise sustain a cause of action for a traditional tort like negligence, assault or battery.

The Court further held that appellants failed to demonstrate that the facts only supported a wrongful death claim, without emotional distress as an element of damages, and not an action alleging one of the traditional torts such as negligence.

Please note: I reserve the right to delete comments that are inappropriate, offensive or off-topic.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.