Court Decision: Lyman v. Huber
.jpg)
In Lyman v. Huber, 2010 ME 139, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court sitting as the Law Court vacated a judgment issued by the Superior Court (Cumberland County, Delahanty, J.) in favor of the plaintiff, awarding her $106,000 for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) and loss of business opportunity. The unanimous Law Court opinion, written by Justice Jon Levy, found that the elements of an IIED claim, which require proof of such severe emotional distress that no reasonable person could endure it, were not met by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff and the defendant had been romantically involved for a number of years and purchased property together where the plaintiff planned to operate a horse farm. The defendant became increasingly controlling and hurtful in his behavior towards the plaintiff which placed her under a great deal of stress. She filed an eight-count complaint against him, including seeking partition of the property, damages for IIED, and "ouster."
The Superior Court awarded the plaintiff $31,000 for ouster, treating the claim as economic loss under the IIED claim, since "ouster" is not recognized as a cause of action in Maine. The trial court also awarded the plaintiff $75,000 in her IIED claim. The defendant filed an appeal from these awards.
Justice Levy noted that the plaintiff did not show that she suffered sufficiently severe bodily harm to warrant an award for IIED. In most cases, such extreme harm must be proved through expert testimony by a doctor or psychologist to establish a recognized disorder such as post-traumatic stress.
Since the plaintiff did not show severe emotional distress and presented no expert testimony, her claim for IIED failed. Accordingly, her claim for economic loss stemming from the IIED claim also was also overturned.
Lyman v. Huber Judgment:
www.mainepersonalinjurylaw.com/uploads/file/Lyman v Huber.pdf
