Jarvis v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 05 December 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 75--1558,75--1558 |
| Citation | 525 F.2d 1267 |
| Parties | James L. JARVIS and Johanna W. Jarvis, Appellants, v. MONTGOMERY WARD AND COMPANY, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Larry R. Curtis, Ames, Iowa, for appellants.
L. R. Voigts, Des Moines, Iowa, for appellee.
Before LAY, STEPHENSON and WEBSTER, Circuit Judges.
Dr. and Mrs. Jarvis brought this diversity action seeking damages for the willful and intentional infliction of mental distress by the defendant Montgomery Ward and Company, Inc. (hereinafter Ward) arising from the latter's attempts to enforce collection of a charge account.
The district court, sitting without a jury, entered judgment for the defendant, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to meet their burden of proving that Ward's acts were willful and malicious. Plaintiffs appealed.
The district court found that between 1969 and 1971, plaintiffs had various discussions with Ward's personnel at the Ames, Iowa store concerning disputed charge accounts; that on some of these occasions the Ward's representatives were less than courteous to Dr. and Mrs. Jarvis; and that on one occasion the plaintiffs overheard the store manager, Mr. James Cornwell, refer to them in a derogatory manner. In 1970 and 1971, Ward's representatives telephoned plaintiffs on a regular basis concerning payment of the accounts. On several occasions, plaintiffs were called more than once on the same day. Occasionally, Dr. Jarvis was called while at work and told that unless his accounts were paid, his employer might be contacted. There was no evidence, however, that the employer was contacted.
The sole question presented for review is whether the district court erred in ruling that Iowa law requires plaintiffs to prove that defendant's acts were willful and malicious in order to recover for emotional distress. Plaintiffs contend that they need only show that Ward's collection attempts were unreasonable. We find the district court properly interpreted Iowa law and affirm its judgment.
Iowa law is well settled that an action for emotional distress lies only where a defendant acts willfully or maliciously. See Amos v. Prom, Inc., 115 F.Supp. 127, 132--33 (N.D.Iowa 1953); Beneficial Finance Co. of Waterloo v. Lamos, 179 N.W.2d 573, 582 (Iowa 1970); Curnett v. Wolf, 244 Iowa 683, 57 N.W.2d 915, 918 (1953); Blakeley v. Shortal's Estate, 236 Iowa 787, 20 N.W.2d 28 (1945); Barnett v. Collection...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Salomon v. Crown Life Ins. Co.
...the trial court rather than this court to draw legitimate and permissible inferences. (Citations omitted.) See Jarvis v. Montgomery Ward and Co., 525 F.2d 1267 (8th Cir. 1975); Moorhead Construction Co. v. City of Grand Forks, 508 F.2d 1008, 1012 (8th Cir. 1975); Wellner v. Minnesota State ......
-
Hall v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 2-57921
...915; Amsden v. Grinnell Mut. Reinsurance Co., 203 N.W.2d 252 (Iowa); Meyer v. Nottger, 241 N.W.2d 911 (Iowa); Jarvis v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 525 F.2d 1267 (8th Cir.); Janvier v. Sweeney, (1919) 2 K.B. 316; Prosser, Law of Torts, § 12 at 56-57 (4th ed.); Restatement, Torts 2d § 46; 86 C.J.......
-
DeKruyff v. Johnston, 2-57168
...defendants should have been sustained, as a matter of law, and judgments accordingly entered. See generally Jarvis v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 525 F.2d 1267, 1268 (8th Cir. 1975); Beneficial Finance Company of Waterloo v. Lamos, 179 N.W.2d 573, 578 (Iowa 1970); Dawson v. Associates Fina......