Opinion

Samms v. Eccles

  • 11 Utah 2d 289
  • 358 P.2d 344
  • 1961 Utah LEXIS 141
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Filed
Jan 10, 1961
Status
Published
Author
Callister
On the bench
Crockett, Callister, Henriod, Wade, McDonough
Cited by
87 cases
Authority
More cited than 11.3%

Abrogated by Johnson v. Rogers, 90 Utah Adv. Rep. 3 (1988)

allegation that "the defendant repeatedly and persistently called [the plaintiff] by phone at various hours including late at night, soliciting her to have illicit sexual relations with him; and that on one occasion [he] came to her residence in connection with such a solicitation and made an indecent exposure of his person" was sufficient to withstand dismissal

How later courts described this case

  • allegation that "the defendant repeatedly and persistently called [the plaintiff] by phone at various hours including late at night, soliciting her to have illicit sexual relations with him; and that on one occasion [he] came to her residence in connection with such a solicitation and made an indecent exposure of his person" was sufficient to withstand dismissal
  • repeated solicitations to a married woman to engage in illicit sexual activities
  • racial slurs and jokes, refusal to train, and termination of employment
  • intentional infliction of emotional distress properly pled where defendant allegedly persistently propositioned plaintiff, a married woman, to engage in sexual relations

Written by the judges who cited it.

Later courts went against this

  • Abrogated by Johnson v. Rogers, 90 Utah Adv. Rep. 3 (1988)

    11 Utah 2d 289 , 358 P.2d 344 (1961), abrogated by Johnson v. Rogers , 763 P.2d 771
    Utah Supreme CourtAug 25, 1988medium confidenceRead it

The opinion

CALLISTER, Justice

(dissenting).

I dissent. The opinion correctly states the law in cases of this nature. However, the complaint in the instant case is deficient and fails to state a cause of action. It fails to show that the defendant deliberately intended to injure the plaintiff by his unwelcome attentions, or that he knew or should have known that his conduct would result in severe emotional distress to the plaintiff. In fact, the plaintiff specifically alleges that “The defendant has wilfully, wantonly, and with intent to commit unlawful acts caused plaintiff severe emotional distress in the following particulars: Defendant has telephoned plaintiff late at night, and at other hours, upon at least IS and possibly more than 25 separate occasions and has made statements and proposals to plaintiff of a highly insulting, obscene and indecent nature, with the avowed purpose of inducing plaintiff to have illicit sexual relations with defendant * * (Emphasis added)

The complaint only shows that the alleged conduct of the defendant amounted to a moral, rather than a legal or actionable, wrong. 1

I would affirm the trial court.

HENRIOD, J., concurs in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice CALLISTER.

. Clack v. Thomason, 57 Ga.App. 253 , 195 S.E. 218 .

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.