Lourcey v. Estate of Scarlett
| Decision Date | 08 July 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. M2002-00995-COA-R3-CV.,M2002-00995-COA-R3-CV. |
| Parties | CINDY R. LOURCEY, ET AL. v. ESTATE OF CHARLES SCARLETT. |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Wilson County No. 12043 Clara Byrd, Judge.
Judgment of the Circuit Court Reversed and Remanded.
David L. Cooper, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellants, Cindy R. Lourcey and Vernon B. Lourcey.
W. Bryan Brooks and Michele M. Brubaker, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Estate of Charles Scarlett.
BEN H. CANTRELL, P.J., M.S., delivered the opinion of the court, in which PATRICIA J. COTTRELL, J. and DON R. ASH, SP. J., joined.
Charles Scarlett, in the middle of a domestic dispute with his wife, flagged down a postal worker, Cindy Lourcey, and asked for help. Without warning, and in the presence of Mrs. Lourcey, Mr. Scarlett shot his wife in the head and then killed himself. Mrs. Lourcey sued Mr. Scarlett's estate alleging negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Mr. Lourcey also sued for loss of consortium. The estate filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12.02(6) of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a cause of action. The trial court granted the Motion to Dismiss. We hold that the Lourceys did in fact state a cause of action. Therefore, we reverse the decision of the trial court and remand for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
Cindy Lourcey was a U.S. Postal Carrier. While delivering mail in Lebanon, Tennessee on February 5, 2001, she came upon Charles Scarlett and his wife Joanne. Mrs. Scarlett was lying in the street naked from the waist up. Mr. Scarlett told Mrs. Lourcey that his wife was having a seizure. Appellant then used her cell phone to call 911. While Mrs. Lourcey was speaking to the 911 operator, Mr. Scarlett pulled out a pistol and shot his wife in the head. He then turned to face Mrs. Lourcey, who was still speaking with the 911 operator, and shot himself in the head as she watched. Mr. Scarlett died as a result of this wound.1
Mrs. Lourcey was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and major depression as a result of this incident. She attempted to return to work, but the mental and emotional stress prevented her from continuing her employment. She stopped working for the postal service around July 31, 2001.
She and her husband filed a claim on January 18, 2002, against Mr. Scarlett's estate (the "Estate") claiming negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress and loss of consortium on behalf of Mr. Lourcey. The Estate filed a Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12.02(6) of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. After a hearing on the motion, the trial court held a hearing on April 5, 2002 and granted the Estate's motion by Order filed April 10, 2002.
When this court reviews a trial court's dismissal of a case pursuant to Rule 12.02(6), there is no presumption of correctness as to the "trial court's legal conclusions regarding the adequacy of the complaint." Pendelton v. Mills, 73 S.W.3d 115, 121 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).
The first issue presented in this case is whether Appellants can plead a case of negligent and/or intentional infliction of emotional distress when Mrs. Lourcey was not related to either person shot at the scene. We do not need to decide whether Appellants would be successful on the merits, but rather, whether there is a cause of action based on these particular facts.
This court has frequently faced the question of what it takes to make out a case of infliction of emotional distress. In Thurmon v. Sellers, 62 S.W.3d 145 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001), this court addressed an appellant's argument that the trial court had erred in not dismissing a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress where the plaintiff was not related to the third party injured in a car accident. We analyzed the requirements for negligent infliction of emotional distress claims as the following:
After a long history of confusing and unpredictable law as it concerned negligent infliction of emotional distress, the Tennessee Supreme Court established the factors required to make out a prima facie case for negligent infliction of emotional distress in its opinion in Camper v. Minor, 915 S.W.2d 437 (Tenn.1996). There, the court held that such cases should be analyzed under the general negligence approach whereby the plaintiff must present evidence as to duty, breach of duty, injury or loss, causation in fact, and proximate, or legal, cause. See id. at 446. In order to recover for emotional injuries, the plaintiff must prove two things: (1) that the defendant's negligence in fact caused the third person's injuries or death and the plaintiff's emotional injury; and (2) that the third person's injury or death and the plaintiff's emotional injury were the proximate and foreseeable results of defendant's negligence. See id. Further, the Camper court held that recovery is allowed only where the plaintiff suffered serious or severe emotional injuries, which occurs when "a reasonable person, normally constituted, would be unable to adequately cope with the mental stress engendered by the circumstances of the case," and that the claimed injury must be supported by expert medical or scientific proof. Id. (citations omitted).
With its holding, the Camper court did not necessarily abandon the "zone of danger" approach to negligent infliction of emotional distress cases. Instead, the court determined that the principles of the "zone of danger" approach should be incorporated into a case's analysis as a way of defining and limiting the elements of duty and proximate cause. See id. at n. 2. The Camper court, however, reserved the specifics of such incorporation for discussion in a later case. That later case was Ramsey v. Beavers, 931 S.W.2d 527 (Tenn.1996).
In Ramsey, the Tennessee Supreme Court determined that the principles of the "zone of danger" approach were helpful in determining foreseeability. The court opined that establishing foreseeability required consideration of three factors, namely, (1) the plaintiff's physical location at the time of the accident and his awareness of the accident, (2) the seriousness of the injury to the third party, and (3) the plaintiff's relationship to the injured third party. See id. at 531.
On appeal, the Sellers argue that Ramsey stands for the proposition that a plaintiff must prove all three factors in order to establish foreseeability. A careful reading of Ramsey insists otherwise. The Ramsey court requires consideration of a number of relevant factors of which the plaintiff's location at the time of the event and his awareness of the accident are considered essential. Because these two factors are considered essential for the determination of foreseeability, the court explained that the plaintiff must establish that he was sufficiently close to the event to allow for sensory observation and that the injury to the third party was, or was reasonably perceived to be, serious or fatal. Although the court recognized that most jurisdictions require the plaintiff to have a close relationship with the third party, it did not expressly state that a plaintiff in Tennessee must have had a close relationship with the third party in order to establish foreseeability. To hold that Ramsey requires proof of all three factors before foreseeability can be established would be contrary to Camper v. Minor as the plaintiff in that case was a complete stranger to the third party but yet was allowed to recover his damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Furthermore, in applying Ramsey, we held in McCracken v. City of Millington, 1999 WL 142391, at *1 (Tenn.Ct.App. Mar.17, 1999), that "[i]n determining whether the plaintiff's emotional injury was foreseeable, the trier of fact should consider (1) the plaintiff's physical location at the time of the injury-producing event as well as the plaintiff's awareness of the injury-producing event, (2) the seriousness of the third party's injury, and (3) the nature of the plaintiff's relationship with the injured third party." Id. at *10 (emphasis added). As concerns the third factor, we believe that the nature of the plaintiff's relationship with the third party should play a pivotal role in determining the amount of damages to award, rather than being a prerequisite for establishing foreseeability as the Sellers suggest.
Thurmon v. Sellers, 62 S.W.3d 145, 162 -64 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).
According to this court's analysis of negligent infliction of emotional distress requirements in Sellers, it is clear that the Estate's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12.02(6) should have been denied. In Pendelton v. Mills, we stated:
A Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motion admits the truth of all the relevant and material factual allegations in the complaint but asserts that no cause of action arises from these facts. Winchester v. Little, 996 S.W.2d 818, 821-22 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998); Smith v. First Union Nat'l Bank, 958 S.W.2d 113, 115 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). Accordingly, courts reviewing a complaint being tested by a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motion must construe the complaint liberally in favor of the plaintiff by taking all factual allegations in the complaint as true, Stein v. Davidson Hotel, 945 S.W.2d 714, 716 (Tenn. 1997), and by giving the plaintiff the benefit of all the inferences that can be reasonably drawn from the pleaded facts. Robert Banks, Jr. & June F. Entman, Tennessee Civil Procedure § 5-6(g), at 254 (1999).
The facts in this case, according to the Complaint, are particularly egregious. Mr. Scarlett had asked Mrs. Lourcey to call 911 because he told her his wife was having a seizure. As Mrs. Lourcey spoke with the 911 operator, to potentially save Mrs. Scarlett's life, Mr. Scarlett shot his wife in the head and...
To continue reading
Request your trial