Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

937 P.2d 1337

Kanzler v. Renner

Wyoming Supreme Court

Decided May 23, 1997

Wyoming Supreme Court · decided 1997-05-23

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Court and jury. It is for the court to determine, in the first instance, whether the defendant's conduct may reasonably be regarded as so extreme and outrageous as to permit recovery, or whether it is necessarily so. Where reasonable men may differ, it is for the jury, subject to the control of the court, to determine whether, in the particular case, the conduct has been sufficiently extreme and outrageous to result in liability.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Bevan Ex Rel. Bevan v. Fix

Relies on Garcia v. Lawson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1997-05-23

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently November 2025

5 federal appellate · 16 state decisions

1101997200020102020decided

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 →

THOMAS, Justice,

¶1concurring specially.

¶2I am in accord with the result of tMs case, because it appears to me that in addition to the sexual misconduct emphasized m the majority opimon, Renner essentially was stalking Kanzler. I have a concern, however, that our law in tMs area is not developing in a particularly cohesive manner, noting that two members of the Court dissented in Garcia v. Lawson, 928 P.2d 1164 (Wyo.1996). This is such a potentially volatile tort that I think it is essential that we carefully craft its parameters.

¶3All the trial bench can discern at this point is that if the ground for claiming intentional infliction of emotional distress is sexual misconduct, a decision to grant a summary judgment is full of risk. Yet, it would not be a good thing for the trial bench to abandon its role as a gatekeeper. Our adoption of the Restatement Second rule surely includes this comment:

¶4h. Court and jury. It is for the court to determine, in the first instance, whether the defendant’s conduct may reasonably be regarded as so extreme and outrageous as to permit recovery, or whether it is necessarily so. Where reasonable men may differ, it is for the jury, subject to the control of the court, to determine whether, in the particular case, the conduct has been sufficiently extreme and outrageous to result in liability.

¶5RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 46 cmt. h (1965).

¶6It is my hope that the trial bench and the bar in Wyoming will not read into tMs decision an arbitrary rule that in every case involving sexual misconduct reasonable men can differ as to whether the conduct is so extreme and outrageous as to justify recovery. I do not believe the Court so intends, but if I am mistaken, such a rule would be erroneous in my view.

/937/p2d/1337 · .json · Public domain