## Facts

- Jordan Brower, a Seattle resident active in civic affairs, publicly criticized local billboard advertising and asserted that Ackerley Communications had numerous illegal or unreported billboards.
- After Brower sued to compel enforcement of billboard regulations, an anonymous caller began a 20-month pattern of harassing calls to Brower’s home.
- The calls included aggressive statements and explicit threats of physical harm (e.g., threats to “kick” Brower and “wring” his neck), including late-night calls.
- The caller made remarks suggesting knowledge of Brower’s personal life and routines.
- Brower believed he recognized the caller’s voice as Christopher and/or Theodore Ackerley and claimed one of them later admitted placing a call.
- Brower alleged severe emotional effects, including fear, sleep disturbance, and changes to daily routines and personal security.
- Brower sued the Ackerleys for, among other claims, civil assault and outrage (intentional infliction of emotional distress).
- The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing the claims; Brower appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether threatening telephone calls, without circumstances indicating immediate ability to carry out the threat, can create apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact sufficient for civil assault.
2. Whether a sustained pattern of anonymous, threatening telephone calls can constitute extreme and outrageous conduct causing severe emotional distress sufficient to submit an outrage (IIED) claim to a jury.

## Decision

- The court affirmed summary judgment dismissing the assault claim.
- The court reversed summary judgment dismissing the outrage (IIED) claim.
- The case was remanded for trial on the outrage claim.

## Legal Principles

- Civil assault requires an act intended to cause, and that does cause, apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.
- Threats of harm at an unspecified future time, communicated by telephone from an unknown location and unaccompanied by circumstances indicating an immediate attack, are insufficiently imminent to constitute civil assault.
- Outrage (IIED) requires (1) extreme and outrageous conduct, (2) intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, and (3) severe emotional distress.
- A prolonged campaign of anonymous threatening calls to a person’s home, including explicit threats of serious harm, can permit a reasonable jury to find conduct extreme and outrageous.
- On summary judgment, the question is whether the evidence, viewed favorably to the nonmoving party, would permit a reasonable jury to find severe emotional distress; severity is commonly a jury question.

## Conclusion

The court held that telephonic threats lacking immediacy do not satisfy the imminence element required for civil assault, but that an extended pattern of anonymous threats and harassment could allow a jury to find extreme and outrageous conduct and severe emotional distress supporting an outrage claim.


Brower v. Ackerley, 88 Wn. App. 87, 943 P.2d 1141 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997)