Lewis v. Bell

Decision Date27 August 1986
Docket NumberNo. 15376-5-I,15376-5-I
Citation724 P.2d 425,45 Wn.App. 192
PartiesGeraldine B. LEWIS, and John L. Lewis, her husband, Appellants, v. Daniel V. BELL and Nancy Bell, his wife, Respondents.
CourtWashington Court of Appeals

Carl Lopez, Lopez, Fantel & Taylor, Peter D. Francis, Francis & Ackerman, Seattle, for Geraldine and John Lewis.

Emmet T. Walsh, Walsh & Walsh, Heather H. Reeve, William R. Hickman, Robert C. Dickerson II, Reed, McClure, Moceri, Thonn & Moriarty, Seattle, for Daniel and Nancy Bell.

THOMPSON, Judge. *

Geraldine B. and John L. Lewis appeal a summary judgment dismissing their tort of outrage action against Daniel V. and Nancy Bell. We affirm.

In 1981, Daniel and Nancy Bell placed their son Robert in the custody of Youth Services, which in turn placed Robert in a receiving home run by Geraldine and John Lewis. On the evening of December 2, 1981, Harborview Hospital informed Mr. Bell by telephone that his son Robert had been injured by one of the residents in the Lewis home. According to Mr. Bell's affidavit, after leaving the hospital, he drove Robert back to the receiving home, walked into the basement and made inquiry of the nine children present as to the whereabouts of either Mr. Lewis or the person who hurt Robert. One of the children slammed and locked the basement door and then Mr. Bell and his son were physically attacked by some of the children. Mr. Bell ran outside the basement and up the stairs to the front door, shouting for someone to call the police. The Bells eventually were able to get into their car and leave, but returned to the home after seeing the police arrive. They declined to press charges against the children or the Lewises.

In her affidavit, Mrs. Lewis relates a different version. She states she was awakened by the sounds of an altercation in her basement. Suddenly, her daughter burst into the bedroom shouting there was a man in the basement fighting with and jumping on the foster children. Mrs. Lewis ran downstairs and saw a man, later identified as Mr. Bell, attempting to enter the basement and scuffling with the children. Mrs. Lewis yelled at the children to get back into the basement and Mr. Bell ran up the steps to the kitchen door and tried to push his way in. Mrs. Lewis stated she believed Mr. Bell was trying to break in to injure her and the foster children, and she was extremely upset, frightened and feared for her life. After calling the police, Mrs. Lewis fainted and fell to the floor, aggravating a preexisting back injury.

In April 1983, Geraldine and John Lewis filed an action based solely on the tort of outrage, seeking damages from Daniel and Nancy Bell. Sixteen months after the suit was filed, the Bells filed a motion for summary judgment and the Lewises sought a continuance to enable them to complete discovery. The Bells' motion was granted and the Lewises' was denied.

The first issue is whether the court erred by summarily dismissing the tort of outrage claim. One who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another is subject to liability for such emotional distress, and if bodily harm to the other results from it, for such bodily harm. Grimsby v. Samson, 85 Wash.2d 52, 530 P.2d 291 (1975); Phillips v. Hardwick, 29 Wash.App. 382, 628 P.2d 506 (1981). To establish a claim for the tort of outrage, Mrs. Lewis must demonstrate that (1) she suffered severe emotional distress; (2) the emotional distress was inflicted intentionally or recklessly, and not negligently; (3) the conduct complained of was outrageous and extreme; and (4) she personally was either the object of Mr. Bell's actions or an immediate family member was present at the time of such conduct. Chambers-Castanes v. King Cy., 100 Wash.2d 275, 669 P.2d 451 (1983).

Additionally, the conduct must be such that a recitation of the facts to an average member of the community would arouse his resentment against Mr. Bell and lead him to exclaim "Outrageous!" Contreras v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., 88 Wash.2d 735, 740, 565 P.2d 1173 (1977).

Construing the facts and all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, which this court must do when reviewing a summary judgment, the motion should have been granted only if, from all the evidence, reasonable persons could reach but one conclusion. Turngren v. King Cy., 104 Wash.2d 293, 705 P.2d 258 (1985).

Here, assuming the events of the evening occurred as described by Mrs. Lewis, Mr. Bell's conduct does not fall within the parameters of that which may be categorized as outrageous. Mr. Bell's conduct in attempting to push his way into the Lewises' home, although possibly tortious and even criminal, if Mrs. Lewis' version is correct, is not " 'so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.' " Grimsby, 85 Wash. at 59, 530 P.2d 291.

The initial screening to determine if conduct is sufficiently extreme and outrageous to result in liability is for the trial court. Chambers-Castanes v. King Cy., supra. These facts did not survive this initial screening. The trial court was correct in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
70 cases
  • Keenan v. Allan
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Washington
    • 12 Mayo 1995
    ...average member of the community would arouse his resentment against defendant and lead him to exclaim "Outrageous!" Lewis v. Bell, 45 Wash.App. 192, 195, 724 P.2d 425 (1986), citing Contreras v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., 88 Wash.2d 735, 740, 565 P.2d 1173 (1977). Regarding the third element o......
  • Momah v. Bharti
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • 28 Abril 2008
    ...a showing of manifest abuse of discretion. Turner v. Kohler, 54 Wash.App. 688, 693, 775 P.2d 474 (1989) (citing, Lewis v. Bell, 45 Wash.App. 192, 196, 724 P.2d 425 (1986)). The trial court can deny a continuance under CR 56(f) if "(1) the requesting party does not offer a good reason for th......
  • Dormaier v. Columbia Basin Anesthesia, P.L.L.C. (In re Estate of Dormaier), s. 30864–2–III, 30864–1–III.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • 14 Noviembre 2013
    ...553 P.2d 423 (1976). While a complaint may contain inexpert pleading, it may not contain insufficient pleading. Lewis v. Bell, 45 Wash.App. 192, 197, 724 P.2d 425 (1986). A complaint is insufficient if it does not give the defendant “fair notice of what the claim is and the ground upon whic......
  • Blackburn v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • 9 Febrero 2023
    ... ... opposing party fair notice of what the claim is and the ... ground upon which it rests. Lewis v. Bell , 45 ... Wn.App. 192, 197, 724 P.2d 425 (1986). At the very least, a ... complaint must identify the legal theories on which the ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT