Ruane v. Murray, 14741

Decision Date07 March 1985
Docket NumberNo. 14741,14741
Citation380 N.W.2d 362
PartiesCarole J. RUANE v. Arnold MURRAY . Considered on Briefs
CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court

James J. Janousek of Dorothy Law Firm, P.C., Sioux Falls, for plaintiff and appellant.

Sidney B. Strange of Strange & Strange, Sioux Falls, for defendant and appellee.

MORGAN, Justice.

Plaintiff Carole Ruane (Carole) appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of defendant Arnold Murray (Murray) on Count II of the complaint. We reverse and remand.

Carole filed this action alleging as Count II outrageous conduct. In essence, she claims: (1) that Murray had sexual intercourse with her knowing she has psychological problems, and that Murray knew or should have known that Carole was unable to resist his advances; (2) that subsequent to having intercourse with Carole, Murray continued to harass her by intimidation and vocal threats; and (3) that the outrageous conduct manifested itself in additional psychological problems requiring hospitalization and further counseling.

According to Carole, Murray was in her apartment in June of 1982 to collect her rent. Murray then allegedly made sexual advances towards Carole. Carole then claims she entered a "disassociative state," characterized by body rigidity, shaking and whimpering. Carole's therapist testified by deposition that she has a prolonged depressive reaction and a personality disorder, which may manifest themselves in a "disassociative state" during times of stress.

Murray allegedly took advantage of Carole's condition and had sexual intercourse with her. He claims she initiated the contact and fully consented.

Carole also alleged that Murray continued to harass her following this incident. She claims he attempted to open her apartment with his master key several days later. Carole called the police and they told Murray to leave her alone.

Following this incident, Carole alleges Murray confronted her in the laundry room of the apartment building and berated her for calling the police. She also contends that Murray telephoned her twice, making "obscene remarks" and "repulsive comments and accusations." Finally, as Carole was prepared to vacate the apartment building, Murray allegedly blocked the doorway to her garage with his car and verbally abused her.

In granting Murray's motion for summary judgment, the trial court concluded that there was no evidence that Murray knew or should have known that Carole was psychologically incapable of resisting his sexual advances. The trial court made no mention of any of the actions Carole alleges as subsequent harassment to the intercourse.

In Wilson v. Great Northern Railway Co., 83 S.D. 207, 157 N.W.2d 19 (1968), this court set guidelines for the grant of summary judgment:

(1) The evidence must be viewed most favorable to the non-moving party; (2) The burden of proof is upon the movant to show clearly that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; (3) Though the purpose of the rule is to secure a just, speedy and inexpensive determination of the action, it was never intended to be used as a substitute for a court trial or for a trial by jury where any genuine issue of material fact exists. (4) A surmise that a party will not prevail upon trial is not sufficient basis to grant the motion on issues which are not shown to be sham, frivolous or so unsubstantial that it be obvious it would be futile to try them. (5) Summary...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • Musch v. H-D Elec. Co-op., Inc.
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • May 23, 1990
    ...The nonmoving party, however, must present specific facts showing that a genuine, material issue for trial exists. Ruane v. Murray, 380 N.W.2d 362, 364 (S.D.1986). Our task on appeal is to determine only whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the law was correctly appli......
  • Garrett v. BankWest, Inc.
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • August 1, 1990
    ...The non-moving party, however, must present specific facts showing that a genuine, material issue for trial exists. Ruane v. Murray, 380 N.W.2d 362, 364 (S.D.1986). Our task on appeal is to determine only whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the law was correctly appl......
  • Janklow v. Viking Press
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • July 18, 1990
    ...did they have a high degree of knowledge of the statements' probable falsity? It is a question of fact for a jury. Under Ruane v. Murray, 380 N.W.2d 362, 364 (S.D.1986), as the nonmoving party, Janklow presented facts, quite extensively, that a genuine, material issue existed for a trial. W......
  • Riggs v. Bennett Cnty. Hosp. & Nursing Home
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota
    • March 31, 2019
    ...other is particularly susceptible to emotional distress by reason of some physical or mental condition or peculiarity." Ruane v. Murray, 380 N.W.2d 362, 364 (S.D. 1986) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46, Comment f (1965)). "The requirement that the conduct be extreme and outrageous......
  • 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