Kramer v. Ricksmeier

• Decision Date: 19 February 1913
• Citation: 159 Iowa 48,139 N.W. 1091
• Parties: KRAMER v. RICKSMEIER.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

159 Iowa 48

139 N.W. 1091

KRAMER

v.RICKSMEIER.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Feb. 19, 1913.

Appeal from District Court, Franklin County; R. M. Wright, Judge.

Action for damages for bodily pain and mental anguish resulting from humiliation and shock caused by the defendant by the use of angry and threatening language over the telephone. There was a demurrer to the petition which was sustained. Plaintiff elected to stand upon her petition, and judgment was entered accordingly. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.J. H. Scales, of Ackley, for appellant.

F. J. McGreevy, of Ackley, for appellee.

EVANS, J.

The plaintiff charged as follows: (1) That she was a person of fair health and able to perform her duties in and about her home on the farm occupied by her and her husband, prior to the month of March last. (2) That during said month she was attacked with inflammatory rheumatism, which left her in an enfeebled and nervous state. (3) That she was making ostensible progress in the way of recovery from said affliction and able to be about her household duties up to about the 12th day of April last. (4) That on or about said date the defendant, in the absence of plaintiff's husband, without cause or provocation on the part of plaintiff, willfully, maliciously, wantonly, and negligently called plaintiff to the telephone in her home, and willfully, wantonly, maliciously, and negligently, and in a vociferous and angry manner, well knowing that her husband was absent, began to make statements about the cattle belonging to her husband, that they had broken out of their pen and were at large, and willfully, wantonly, and negligently, and with the intent to provoke and injure plaintiff, in violent and profane language, ordered her to take charge of the cattle at once, with an intimation that he would be at plaintiff's home to avenge himself for an assumed wrong she had permitted in failing to keep her husband's cattle within their inclosure, with intent to frighten, annoy, and injure plaintiff. (5) That by reason of said willfull, wanton, violent, abusive, threatening, and profane language over said telephone line by defendant, plaintiff became and was greatly humiliated and shocked, and caused to become greatly excited and nervous, resulting in sickness and debility, and causing plaintiff great pain and anxiety and to relapse into a feeble and debilitated condition, from which she has been unable to recover and is permanently disabled, and suffers great bodily pain and mental anguish, and she believes she will continue to so suffer such pain and anguish in the future.

[1] The demurrer was based upon the general ground that no cause of action was stated and that the alleged damages were speculative and remote. Counsel for appellant concedes that there are no authorities which sustain his contention for the sufficiency of his petition. He contends, however, that the wrong charged against the defendant is equivalent to an assault, and that it is analogous also to an action for malicious prosecution. So far as we know, it has been held uniformly that claims of the nature set forth in the plaintiff's petition are too speculative and remote and improbable to furnish a basis for an action for damages. The question received consideration by us in Lee v. Burlington, 113 Iowa, 356, 85 N. W. 618, 86 Am. St. Rep. 379. Also in Mahoney v. Dankwart, 108 Iowa, 321, 79 N. W. 134, and to some extent in Zabron v. Cunard Steamship Co., 151 Iowa, 345, 131 N. W. 18, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 751. We need not repeat the arguments contained in the opinions in these cases. The following cases from other jurisdictions are to the same effect: Nelson v. Crawford, 122 Mich. 466, 81...