Computer Publications, Inc. v. Welton

Citations: 2002 OK 50; 49 P.3d 732; 19 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 368; 73 O.B.A.J. 1839; 2002 Okla. LEXIS 56; 2002 WL 1300762Docket: 94,983

Court: Supreme Court of Oklahoma; June 11, 2002; Oklahoma; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Cameron Craig, owner of Computer Publications, Inc. (CPI), hired Alysia Beth Welton in 1990, leading to a consensual sexual relationship that lasted until 1997. After Welton ended the relationship, she left CPI without another job and was subsequently contacted by a CPI customer for work on the same source code she had previously managed. CPI filed a lawsuit against Welton, accusing her of misappropriating trade secrets and tortious interference, seeking damages and injunctive relief. In response, Welton filed a third-party claim against Craig for intentional infliction of emotional distress and a counterclaim against CPI for bad faith regarding the trade secret allegations.

The trial court dismissed most claims, allowing only Welton's claims against Craig and CPI to proceed. After a jury trial from February 22-25, 2000, Welton was awarded $50,000 in compensatory damages, $1,000 in punitive damages, and $9,442.18 in pre-judgment interest against Craig. Additionally, Welton received $10,107.00 in sanctions against CPI and Craig for discovery abuse, and a bench trial resulted in a judgment of $15,815.87 in her favor for the bad faith counterclaim against CPI. Both CPI and Craig appealed, with the Court of Civil Appeals affirming most judgments but reversing the ruling on Welton's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, determining Craig's actions were not extreme enough for jury consideration. Welton then sought certiorari, which was granted.

The denial of Craig's motion for directed verdict is reviewed de novo, meaning all evidence favoring the non-moving party is accepted as true while evidence favoring the moving party is disregarded. A denial must be affirmed unless there is a complete lack of proof on a material issue. For a jury verdict to be upheld, there must be any competent evidence supporting it, disregarding evidence from the opposing party that does not support the verdict.

Oklahoma recognizes the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress, also known as the tort of outrage, established in Breeden v. League Services Corp. This tort is governed by standards from the Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 46, requiring proof of extreme and outrageous conduct resulting in severe emotional distress. To succeed, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant acted intentionally or recklessly, engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct, caused emotional distress, and that the distress was severe.

The trial court plays a crucial role in determining the outrageousness of the defendant's conduct and the severity of the plaintiff's distress. Initially, the court assesses whether the conduct is sufficiently extreme and outrageous to allow for recovery. If reasonable persons might differ, the jury decides whether the conduct meets the necessary threshold for liability. The court also determines if the evidence supports a finding of severe emotional distress, while the jury assesses the existence of such distress based on the evidence presented.

For conduct to be considered outrageous, it must be so extreme that it exceeds all bounds of decency and is viewed as intolerable in a civilized community. A plaintiff generally must demonstrate that the defendant's actions would provoke outrage from an average member of the community.

Craig engaged in continuous harassment of Welton after her resignation from CPI on October 31, 1997, persisting for nearly two years until at least November 1999. His harassment aimed to compel her return to work and to revive their intimate relationship, despite multiple life changes for Welton, including her engagement and subsequent marriage. Craig's methods included extensive attempts to contact Welton through phone calls, voicemails, emails, letters, gifts, and even direct contact at her workplace and social venues. Welton took proactive measures to avoid him, such as changing her phone numbers and temporarily relocating, but Craig managed to track her down despite these efforts.

The court found sufficient evidence of Craig's extreme and outrageous behavior, warranting a jury's consideration of the case. It emphasized that the fourth element of intentional infliction of emotional distress requires demonstrating that the distress suffered by the plaintiff is so severe that it exceeds what a reasonable person could endure. Emotional distress encompasses a range of unpleasant mental reactions and must be extreme to establish liability. Factors such as the intensity and duration of the distress are crucial, and while severe distress must be proven, the outrageousness of the defendant's conduct can serve as significant evidence of the distress's existence. However, liability is not established if the plaintiff's distress is exaggerated or unreasonable unless the defendant is aware of the plaintiff's susceptibility to such distress.

Welton experienced severe emotional distress due to Craig's behavior, which included sending disturbing letters and stalking her. Testimony from a friend highlighted Welton's unusual fearfulness, including physical reactions like shaking, crying, weight loss, and a rash. Welton described her experience over two years as traumatic, filled with constant fear of Craig's actions. After contacting Craig's therapist, who confirmed the ongoing stalking, her anxiety intensified. Although Craig did not physically threaten her, Welton felt increasingly unsafe, noting instances where he tracked her whereabouts and personal information. The court found sufficient evidence of Welton's emotional distress, affirming the trial court's denial of Craig's motion for a directed verdict on this claim. The court vacated the Court of Civil Appeals' reversal regarding Welton's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress and upheld the trial court's ruling in her favor. The decision emphasizes the requirement for proof of severe emotional distress resulting from extreme and outrageous conduct.