Reid v. Pierce County
| Citation | 136 Wn.2d 195,961 P.2d 333 |
| Decision Date | 03 September 1998 |
| Docket Number | 65985-1,65611-8,Nos. 65130-2,HYDE-LUCAS and L,65390-9,65982-6,s. 65130-2 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
| Parties | Karen REID and Marion Ray Reid, Appellants, v. PIERCE COUNTY; Eberhard Bruell; and Emmanuel Lacsina, M.D., and John Does 1-10, Respondents. Cynthiaaura M. Hyde, Appellants, v. PIERCE COUNTY; Eberhard Bruell; and Emmanuel Lacsina, M.D., and John Does 1-10, Respondents. Jacquie HYDE, individually and as representative of the Estate of Jack Hyde, Appellant, v. PIERCE COUNTY, a governmental entity; Emmanuel Lacsina, individually and as its agent; and Eberhard Bruell, individually and as its agent, Respondents. Betty V. VAUGHAN, Appellant, v. PIERCE COUNTY; William Barnes; and Emmanuel Lacsina, M.D., and John Does 1-10, Respondents. Violet YARBROUGH, individually and as a representative of the Estate of Ralph Wilson Roberts, Louise Trew, David Roberts, Larry Roberts and Pam Sullivan, Appellant, v. PIERCE COUNTY, a governmental entity; and Edward Duke, individually and its agent, Respondents. |
Luvera, Barnett, Brindley, Beninger & Cunningham, Joel Cunningham, Ralph Brindley, David Beninger, Judith Lonnquist, Sevilla Claydon, Seattle, for Appellants.
Paul Lindenmuth, John Ladenburg, Jr., Fredrick Burgess, Tacoma, for Respondents.
In these consolidated cases, we are asked We decline to hold, however, that any of the Plaintiffs have colorable claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress, tort of outrage, or violation of their constitutional rights of privacy under article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution. Insofar as the trial court entered summary judgment for the County or granted the County's motion under CR 12(b)(6) on those claims, we affirm.
to decide whether Plaintiffs may maintain a cause of action against Pierce County (County) and its employees for appropriating and displaying to others photographs of corpses of Plaintiffs' deceased relatives. Plaintiffs allege negligent infliction of emotional distress, tort of outrage, violation of their rights of privacy guaranteed by the state constitution, and common law invasion of privacy. We hold the Plaintiffs may maintain an action for common law invasion of privacy and reverse the trial court's order of summary judgment entered against them on that issue.
Karen Reid is the niece of, now deceased, former Governor Dixie Lee Ray. 1 The Reid complaint alleges that for a period of at least 10 years employees of the Pierce County Medical Examiner's office appropriated autopsy photographs of corpses, showing them at cocktail parties and using them to create personal scrapbooks. Specifically, the Reids allege photographs of former Governor Ray's corpse were personally possessed by Bruell, an employee of the Medical Examiner's office.
The Reids became aware of the appropriation and use of the autopsy photographs through the press. Certain newspapers reported that attorneys for the County used Bruell's appropriation of autopsy photographs against him to obtain a more favorable settlement for the County in an employment discrimination suit.
The Reid complaint alleges the appropriation and use of the autopsy photographs of former Governor Ray subjects the County to liability for tort of outrage, common law invasion of privacy, and violates the Plaintiffs' state and federal constitutional right to privacy. The superior court granted the County's CR 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Jacquie Hyde is the widow of former Tacoma Mayor Jack Hyde. Cynthia Hyde-Lucas and Laura Hyde are the former Mayor's daughters. They also brought suit against the County on the same bases asserted by the Reids. Their complaints were dismissed after the County succeeded in obtaining summary judgment against them.
In the early 1980s, Roberta Vaughan died of an apparent drug overdose. At the time of her death, William Barnes took six Polaroid photographs of Ms. Vaughan at either the scene of her death or at the Medical Examiner's office. These photographs were placed in the Medical Examiner's records and files. After Barnes' employment with the Medical Examiner's office ended, he learned the office was microfilming files and destroying photographs. The Vaughans allege Barnes was given permission to obtain the photographs from cases he worked on, including the six pictures of Roberta Vaughan. Barnes admits he showed those pictures to persons with whom he worked at his new job at Pierce County Public Works. Barnes did not have permission from Betty Vaughan (Roberta's mother) to show the photographs to anyone.
Betty Vaughan sued the County, the Medical Examiner, and Barnes, asserting the County was liable for tort of outrage, common law invasion of privacy, and violation of the Plaintiffs' constitutional right of privacy under the
state and federal constitutions. The superior court granted the County's motion for summary judgment.
As a result of an accident with a power tool, Ralph Wilson Roberts died of strangulation. Barnes, the same investigator who investigated the death of Roberta Vaughan, investigated Roberts' death and took photographs of Roberts. Similar to the Vaughan case, Barnes obtained the Roberts photographs after his employment with the Medical Examiner's office ended and during his tenure with Pierce County Public Works.
Violet Yarbrough, Roberts' widow, alleges that for approximately eight years after Barnes obtained the autopsy photographs, he discussed postmortem details of Roberts' death and shared the autopsy photographs with others. The photographs were marked with Roberts' name and Barnes did not remove the deceased's name when showing the photographs to friends and coworkers. Yarbrough also alleges Barnes made copies of the photographs and displayed those copies in classes he taught on road safety. Barnes admits he did this. Like the Vaughan case, Barnes never asked Roberts' family for permission to display the photographs or discuss the postmortem details of Roberts' death. Summary judgment was entered in favor of the County.
We granted all of the Plaintiffs' petitions for review and consolidated the cases because they present highly similar issues.
Plaintiffs' claims in these cases were either dismissed under CR 12(b)(6) 2 or summary judgment was granted in favor of the County. Dismissal of a claim under In reviewing an order of summary judgment, we engage in the same inquiry as the trial court. The motion for summary judgment should be granted only if the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, and admissions on file demonstrate there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We consider the facts in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Wilson v. Steinbach, 98 Wash.2d 434, 437, 656 P.2d 1030 (1982). In this case, the nonmoving parties are the Plaintiffs.
CR 12(b)(6) is reviewed de novo and is appropriate only if "it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that no facts exist that would justify recovery." Cutler v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 124 Wash.2d 749, 755, 881 P.2d 216 (1994). Furthermore, we accept as true the allegations in a plaintiff's complaint and any reasonable inferences therein. See Chambers-Castanes v. King County, 100 Wash.2d 275, 278, 669 P.2d 451, 39 A.L.R.4th 671 (1983); Corrigal v. Ball & Dodd Funeral Home, Inc., 89 Wash.2d 959, 961, 577 P.2d 580 (1978).
Plaintiffs Hyde and Yarbrough allege tort of outrage and negligent infliction of emotional distress. 3 Summary judgment was granted in favor of the County and Plaintiffs Hyde and Yarbrough seek review of the superior court's determination of these issues.
Outrageous conduct is conduct "which the recitation of the facts to an average member of the community would arouse his resentment against the actor and lead him to First, the emotional distress must be inflicted intentionally or recklessly; mere negligence is not enough. Second, the conduct of the defendant must be outrageous and extreme.... Liability exists "only where the conduct has been 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." (Italics ours.) ... Clearly, a case-by-case approach will be necessary to define the precise limits of such conduct. Nevertheless, among the factors a jury or court should consider are the position occupied by the defendant (comment e ), whether plaintiff was peculiarly susceptible to emotional distress and defendant's knowledge of this fact (comment f ), and whether defendant's conduct may have been privileged under the circumstances (comment g ).
exclaim 'Outrageous!' " Browning v. Slenderella Sys., 54 Wash.2d 440, 448, 341 P.2d 859 (1959) (quoting Restatement of Torts § 46(g) (Supp.1948)). See also Dunn v. Moto Photo, Inc., 828 S.W.2d 747, 753 (Tenn.App.1991). That, however, is not the test for a tort of outrage claim. To establish a tort of outrage claim, a plaintiff must show (1) extreme and outrageous conduct, (2) intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, and (3) severe emotional distress on the part of the plaintiff. Dicomes v. State, 113 Wash.2d 612, 630, 782 P.2d 1002 (1989) (citing Rice v. Janovich, 109 Wash.2d 48, 61, 742 P.2d 1230 (1987)). In Grimsby v. Samson, 85 Wash.2d 52, 530 P.2d 291, 77 A.L.R.3d 436 (1975), we described what is required by these three elements:
Third, the conduct must result in severe emotional distress to the plaintiff (comment j ). Resulting bodily harm would, of course, be an indication...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grange Ins. Ass'n, Corp. v. Roberts
...bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.’ ” Reid v. Pierce County, 136 Wash.2d 195, 202, 961 P.2d 333 (1998) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Grimsby v. Samson, 85 Wash.2d 52, 59, 530 P.2d 291 (1975)). ¶ 19 Relying on Woo, Roberts argu......
-
Strong v. Terrell
...in severe emotional distress to Strong. Kloepfel v. Bokor, 149 Wash.2d 192, 195-96, 66 P.3d 630 (2003) (citing Reid v. Pierce County, 136 Wash.2d 195, 202, 961 P.2d 333 (1998)). Our Supreme Court adopted these elements from the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 (1965). Kloepfel, 149 Wash.2......
-
Tunstall ex rel. Tunstall v. Bergeson
...In reviewing an order of summary judgment, this court engages in the same inquiry as the trial court. E.g., Reid v. Pierce County 136 Wash.2d 195, 201, 961 P.2d 333 (1998). Summary judgment is upheld if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment ......
-
Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran
...Cal. Rptr.2d 79, 820 P.2d 181 (1991)); Hayes v. Northern Hills General Hospital, 628 N.W.2d 739, 744 (S.D.2001); Reid v. Pierce County, 136 Wash.2d 195, 961 P.2d 333, 337 (1988); Courtney v. Courtney, 186 W.Va. 597, 413 S.E.2d 418, 422 18. See supra note 10. 19. See Daigrepont v. State Raci......
-
Related State Torts
...West v. Media Gen. Convergence, Inc. , 53 S.W.3d 640 (Tenn. 2001); Fischer v. Hooper , 732 A.2d 396 (N.H. 1999); Reid v. Pierce County , 961 P.2d 333 (Wash. 1998); Jonap v. Silver , 474 A.2d 800 (Conn. 1984); Leggett v. First Interstate Bank , 739 P.2d 1083 (Or. 1987); Monroe v. Darr , 559 ......
-
ON TIME, (IN)EQUALITY, AND DEATH.
...(132.) Id. at 627. (133.) Id. (134.) See 45 C.F.R. [section] 160.103 (2020); Weaver v. Myers, 229 So. 3d 1118,1127-32 (Fla. 2017). (135.) 961 P.2d 333, 335 (Wash. 1998) (en (136.) State v. Condon, 789 N.E.2d 696 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). (137.) Id. at 703. (138.) See, e.g., Robyn Ross, Laid to ......
-
The concept of sepulchral rights in Canada and the U.S. in the age of genomics: hints from Iceland.
...depiction of the deceased may support an action for the invasion of the common law right of privacy. See Reid v. Pierce County, 961 P.2d 333, 335 (Wash. (115.) Holsen v. Heritage Mut. Ins. Co., 478 N.W.2d 59 (Wis. App. 1991); Cohen v. Groman Mortuary Inc., 41 Cal.Rptr. 481 (1964). (116.) [1......