Joseph Bartanus, Sr. v. Bernard V. Lis, 332 Pa.Super. 48 (1984)
CASE: Man sues sister, brother in law for poisoning his son against him.
FACTS: Father asks sister and brother-in-law to raise his son for him while he is on assignment for the government overseas. Father pays support, visits periodically (when available). The boy's mother lived in Germany. When it became apparent that the man was ready to retain a parental relationship with the child, when the boy reached the age of 17, the aunt and uncle became upset (cursing him openly in front of the boy, threatening him with bodily harm, etc.). They told the boy that his father did not love him, and that his father's house was dirty and full of rats. When the boy went to live with his father in Germany, the aunt and uncle, in correspondence with the boy, called the father "a whoremaster, liar and artist who really did not love his son." They threatened to commit suicide unless he came home from Germany and urged him to write to his congressman to tell him that he had been kidnapped by his father. At the behest of the relatives, the boy wrote a note to his father that he did not have long to live and that God would punish him." The man sent his son back to the relatives when the boy became moody and unhappy. Thereafter, he suffered emotional distress, a great loss of sleep (but sweaty sleep when it came), loss of blood, mental pain, anguish, nervousness and high blood pressure. He sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The case must have been dismissed before trial (though the excerpt does not mention the procedural history of the case), and the father must have appealed.
QUESTION: Under these facts, can a father sustain actions for alientation of a child's affections for his parent and intentional infliction of emotional distress?
COURT SAYS: Yes, overturning lower court determination that the relatives should win as a matter of law.
HOLDING: Trial court erred in dismissing intentional infliction of emotional distress and alienation of affection actions brought by a father against his sister and brother-and-law, who had raised his son and allegedly turned the boy against his father; plaintiff set forth sufficient facts to overcome a ruling against him as a matter of law where he alleged that the defendant's actions caused him severe emotional distress, the loss of his relationship with his son, a great loss of sleep, the passage of blood, perspiration when sleeping, mental pain and anguish, nervousness and high blood pressure.
RATIONALE:
- In an action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the central inquiry is whether there was intentional, outrageous conduct and whether the plaintiff suffered severe distress as a result of that conduct. The focus, then, is on the effect the conduct has on the plaintiff.
- In an action for aliention of affection, it is not necessary that the conduct involved be outrageous and, more importantly, the focusis on the effect the prohibited conduct has on the child.
T O P
|