## Facts

- Dan R. Cullison met 16-year-old Sandy Medley in a parking lot, spoke briefly, and invited her to his home to talk.
- Later that night, a group entered Cullison’s mobile home: Sandy; her father, Ernest; her mother, Doris; her brother, Ron; and her brother-in-law, Terry Simmons.
- The group confronted Cullison inside the darkened home; Ernest wore a holstered revolver on his thigh, repeatedly grabbed/shook it, and made threatening statements.
- No one physically touched Cullison, but he alleged he feared imminent harm and later claimed significant emotional and psychological injury requiring treatment.
- Cullison alleged a subsequent encounter in a restaurant in which Ernest displayed the gun in a menacing manner.

## Issues

1. Whether Indiana’s impact rule bars recovery of emotional-distress damages absent physical impact for intentional tort claims arising from the confrontation.
2. Whether the evidence created triable issues on intentional trespass and assault, including emotional-distress damages.
3. Whether the evidence supported independent claims for invasion of privacy/harassment and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Indiana granted transfer, vacated the Court of Appeals opinion, and reversed in part.
- Summary judgment was reversed on the trespass claim; a jury could find an intentional entry onto Cullison’s home and that emotional distress was a foreseeable result of the manner of entry and confrontation.
- Summary judgment was reversed on the assault claim; a jury could find defendants intentionally created a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact despite no physical contact and the gun remaining holstered.
- Summary judgment was affirmed on invasion of privacy/harassment; the facts did not satisfy the elements of those torts.
- Summary judgment was affirmed on intentional infliction of emotional distress; the conduct, though wrongful, was not “extreme and outrageous” under the separate IIED standard.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on trespass and assault.

## Legal Principles

- Indiana’s impact rule does not bar recovery of emotional-distress damages for intentional torts such as trespass and assault when emotional harm is a foreseeable consequence of the intentional conduct.
- Assault requires an intentional act creating a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact; physical touching is not required, and damages may include mental trauma and distress.
- Intentional trespass is itself a legal wrong; when carried out in a threatening or intimidating manner, emotional-distress damages may be recoverable as part of compensatory damages.
- IIED remains a distinct tort requiring conduct so extreme and outrageous that it exceeds all bounds of decency; not all threatening or hostile confrontations meet that threshold.
- Claims labeled as harassment or invasion of privacy require proof of their own elements and do not proceed solely because defendants’ conduct was intimidating.

## Conclusion

The court limited the impact rule to prevent it from defeating emotional-distress recovery tied to intentional trespass and assault, allowing those claims to proceed to a jury, while rejecting separate privacy/harassment and IIED theories because the evidence did not meet their specific elements and heightened standards.


Cullison v. Medley, 570 N.E.2d 27 (Ind. 1991)