Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

467 So. 2d 1114

467 So.2d 1114

10 Fla.L.Weekly 1114

Docket No. 84-2074.

Kent v. Harrison

C. Wesley KENT, III, Appellant, v. Hershel HARRISON, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided May 1, 1985.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1985-05-01

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency.”

quoted by 3 later decisions, including 777 F. Supp. 945 - McCray v. Holt, 813 So. 2d 985 - Normius v. Eckerd Corp.

“Thus, we harbor no doubt that the telephone calls received by Kent were offensive and impaired him, his tranquility, and the peacefulness of his home. We are no less persuaded that Harrison's conduct was intentionally designed and undertaken to distress and annoy Kent. In fulfilling the responsibility assigned to us in Metropolitan [ Life Insurance Company v. McCarson 467 So.2d 277 (Fla. 1985)], however, we cannot conclude that such behavior was "so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency." 467 So.2d at 279. Moreover, Kent's state of vexation, irritation, and agitation cannot be the foundation for a finding that Harrison's behavior is within the range marked out in Metropolitan by the standard of "atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community." Id.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including 695 F. Supp. 2d 1303 - Oppenheim v. I.C. System, Inc., 573 So. 2d 1060 - Stoddard v. Wohlfahrt

Relies on 467 So. 2d 277 - Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. McCarson · Ponton v. Scarfone · 426 So. 2d 972 - Gmuer v. Garner

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1985-05-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently November 2015

6 state decisions

601985199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Alan D. Bennett and Jeffrey King of Bennett & King, P.A., Sarasota, for appellant.

¶2No appearance for appellee.

¶3FRANK, Judge.

¶4The appellant, C. Wesley Kent, III, sued the appellee, Hershel Harrison, alleging that Harrison initiated and for several months continued a campaign of telephonic harassment in the aftermath of a verbal conflict which occurred between them on a Sunday morning in Brevard County. The sole issue before us, decided adversely to Kent in the lower court and here, is whether the disturbing conduct attributed to Harrison constituted the intentional infliction of emotional distress. The lower court, following our decision in Gmuer v. Garner,*1115426 So.2d 972 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), directed a verdict for Harrison. The supreme court's recent rejection of Gmuer in Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. McCarson,467 So.2d 277 (Fla. 1985), however, does not alter the result in the present matter.

¶5In Ponton v. Scarfone,468 So.2d 1009 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), we stated:

The threshold test to be followed in assessing behavior claimed to constitute the "intentional infliction of emotional distress" is whether such behavior is "so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency." In applying that standard, it is manifest that the subjective response of the person who is the target of the actor's conduct is not to control the question of whether the tort occurred. Rather, an evaluation of the claimed misconduct must be undertaken to determine, as objectively as is possible, whether it is "atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community." That burden falls to the judiciary — it is a matter of law, not a question of fact.

¶6In testing the correctness of the lower court's action, we treat the record before us in a light most favorable to Kent. Thus, we harbor no doubt that the telephone calls received by Kent were offensive and impaired him, his tranquility and the peacefulness of his home. We are no less persuaded that Harrison's conduct was intentionally designed and undertaken to distress and annoy Kent. In fulfilling the responsibility assigned to us in Metropolitan, however, we cannot conclude that such behavior was "so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency." 467 So.2d at 279. Moreover, Kent's state of vexation, irritation and agitation cannot be the foundation for a finding that Harrison's behavior is within the range marked out in Metropolitan by the standard of "atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community." Id.

¶7Affirmed.

¶8SCHEB, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur.

/467/so2d/1114 · .json · Public domain