Tort Law - Emotional Distress Capable of Healing Itself Is an Insufficient Injury for a Claim of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and Emotional Distress That Does Not Cause Physical Injury Capable of Objective Determination Is an Insufficient Injury for a Claim of Negligence
![handle is hein.journals/ublr16 and id is 166 raw text is: TORT LAW-EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CAPABLE OF HEALING
ITSELF IS AN INSUFFICIENT INJURY FOR A CLAIM OF IN-
TENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, AND
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS THAT DOES NOT CAUSE PHYSICAL
INJURY CAPABLE OF OBJECTIVE DETERMINATION IS AN
INSUFFICIENT INJURY FOR A CLAIM OF NEGLIGENCE.
Hamilton v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 66 Md. App. 46, 502 A.2d 1057, cert.
denied, 306 Md. 118, 507 A.2d 631 (1986).
A mother and daughter purchased a truck from a dealer who as-
signed the installment contract to a credit company.I After several pay-
ments were made, the mother became preoccupied with her terminally ill
husband, and the daughter became unable to work full time because of
injuries suffered in a car accident.2 The installment payments became
overdue, and a representative of the credit company began telephoning
the mother in a rude and hostile manner, on one occasion as late as 10:00
in the evening.3 During these conversations, the representative
threatened to sue the mother, ruin her credit, and referred to her daugh-
ter as a liar. As a consequence, the mother suffered extreme agitation
and experienced difficulty sleeping.4
After the credit company repossessed the truck, the mother and
daughter visited the credit company's office to reinstate the installment
contract.5 While at the credit company's office, the mother asked to
speak with the representative who had been telephoning her.6 In re-
sponse, the representative shouted from another room that he wanted
nothing to do with her.7 The mother became so embarrassed that [she]
could have cried.8 Subsequently, in contravention of the sales contract,
the credit company rejected the offer to reinstate the contract.9
The mother and daughter brought suit against the credit company
and its representative for, inter alia,10 intentional infliction of emotional
1. Hamilton v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 66 Md. App. 46, 51, 502 A.2d 1057, 1059-60,
cert. denied, 306 Md. 118, 507 A.2d 631 (1986).
2. Id. at 51-52, 502 A.2d at 1060.
3. Id. at 52, 502 A.2d at 1060.
4. Id. at 52-53, 502 A.2d at 1060. For several years, the mother also suffered urinary
incontinence causing her to get up several times each night. Id. at 53, 502 A.2d at
1060.
5. Id. at 55, 502 A.2d at 1060-61.
6. Id. at 55, 502 A.2d at 1061.
7. Record Extract at 296, Hamilton v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 66 Md. App. 46, 502
A.2d 1057, cert. denied, 306 Md. 118, 507 A.2d 631 (1986).
8. Hamilton, 66 Md. App. at 55, 502 A.2d at 1061.
9. Id. at 55, 502 A.2d at 1062. The credit company erroneously applied Florida law
which permitted reinstatement of the installment contact only if the balance was
paid in full. Id.
10. Id. at 55-56, 502 A.2d at 1062. The amended complaint included six counts:
1) conversion by wrongful deprivation of the truck; 2) conversion by wrongful re-
tention of the truck; 3) violation of the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act;
4) breach of contract by failure to return the truck and reinstate the conditional
sales agreement; 5) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and 6) negligent in-
fliction of emotional distress.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/ublr16&div=12&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most