Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


DAWN HASELHUHN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v JAMES HUMPHREY, INC., d/b/a JIM'S CRACKER BARREL GENERAL STORE, Defendant-Appellee.

UNPUBLISHED June 12, 2007

No. 267138 Oakland Circuit Court LC No. 2004-059266-NO

Before: Servitto, P.J., and Jansen and Schuette, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff appeals as of right following a jury verdict of no cause of action on her premises liability claim. Plaintiff also appeals the trial court's grant of summary disposition for defendant on her separate claims of negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. We affirm. Plaintiff was injured when she slipped on water while shopping in defendant's store. She claims that defendant's employees refused to summon assistance for her and forced her to walk to her car, exacerbating her injuries. She maintains that the security video cameras in defendant's store captured the incident on videotape, and that defendant offered no reasonable excuse for failing to produce the videotape evidence. Defendant responds that the employees reasonably assisted plaintiff, and that there was no videotape of the incident. On appeal, plaintiff first argues that the trial court erred by granting summary disposition on her claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. We review de novo a trial court's grant of summary disposition. Wilson v Alpena Co Rd Comm, 474 Mich 161, 166; 713 NW2d 717 (2006). Although our Supreme Court has not formally recognized the tort, this Court has accepted intentional infliction of emotional distress as a viable tort for more than twenty years. See Rosenberg v Rosenberg Bros Special Account, 134 Mich App 342, 350; 351 NW2d 563 (1984). The elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress are: (1) that the defendant engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct, (2) that the defendant's conduct was intentional or reckless, (3) that the conduct caused the plaintiff's injuries, and (4) that the plaintiff's injuries included severe emotional distress. Doe v Mills, 212 Mich App 73, 91, 536 NW2d 824 (1995). Here, the trial court correctly determined that plaintiff failed to present sufficient proof of the first element of her claim. The initial determination as to whether defendant's conduct could be reasonably deemed extreme and outrageous is for the trial court. Sawabini v Desenberg, 143 -1-


Mich App 373, 383; 372 NW2d 559 (1985). As this Court has pointed out in several cases, a plaintiff claiming intentional infliction of emotional distress must assert something more than mere insulting, malicious, or aggravating behavior. Doe, supra at 91. The conduct at issue must be "atrocious" and "utterly intolerable in a civilized community." Id.; see also 1 Restatement Torts, 2d,

Download DAWN HASELHUHN V JAMES HUMPHREY INC.pdf

Michigan Law