The Rule of Fisher v. Fisher is that intentional infliction of emotional distress can be the legal cause of a wrongful death when the tortious conduct is a substantial factor in causing severe emotional distress that leads to the victim's death, under the broader scope of liability standard applicable to intentional torts rather than the narrower "scope of risk" standard used for negligence.
Appeal from judgment after jury trial in Superior Court, San Diego County.
Defendants Appellants were Bruce B. Fisher and Kent Fisher — two of four brothers involved in a family estate dispute who falsely reported their deceased mother as missing to police.
Plaintiff Respondent was Todd A. Fisher — brother of decedent Wade Fisher, suing individually and as successor in interest for wrongful death.
The suit sounded in wrongful death based on intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence. Todd alleged defendants conspired to make false statements to police requiring law enforcement intervention.
The key substantive facts leading to the suit were that after their parents died and the four brothers feuded over estate assets, defendants called police five months after their mother's death falsely reporting her missing, knowing she had died of natural causes, with intent to cast suspicion on Todd and Wade. Wade, a recovering alcoholic sober for 15 years, received a distressing call from police inquiring about his mother's whereabouts. Expert testimony established the call caused Wade severe emotional distress leading to his relapse one week later, after which he drove drunk and crashed his motorcycle, dying from his injuries.
The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court entered judgment on jury verdict awarding approximately $5.1 million to Wade's estate and $4.3 million to Todd including punitive damages, ruling that defendants' intentional infliction of emotional distress was a substantial factor in causing Wade's severe emotional distress and death.
The key question(s) on Appeal: 1. Whether defendants' tortious conduct was the legal cause of Wade's death as a matter of law, specifically whether Wade's drunk driving death was within the scope of liability for wrongful death based on the IIED verdict.
The Appellate Court held that Wade's relapse and death were within the scope of defendants' liability for wrongful death based on intentional infliction of emotional distress, applying Restatement sections 33 and 46 which establish a broader scope of liability for intentional torts than the "scope of risk" standard applicable to negligence, considering defendants' moral culpability, the serious harm intended, and their extreme deviation from appropriate care.
The case is inapplicable when the tortious conduct is merely negligent rather than intentional, when the defendants lack knowledge of the victim's particular susceptibility to emotional distress, when the conduct does not meet the "extreme and outrageous" standard for IIED, or when public policy considerations favor limiting liability.
The case leaves open whether the same scope of liability analysis would apply to negligence claims in similar circumstances, the proper application of comparative fault principles when both intentional and negligent conduct contribute to harm, and the scope of the "eggshell plaintiff" rule in IIED cases involving addiction and mental health conditions.
Counsel
For Appellant Bruce B. Fisher: Bruce B. Fisher, in pro. per.
For Appellant Kent Fisher: Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Todd E. Lundell
For Respondent: Williams Iagmin, Jon R. Williams