## Facts

- Judy Kloepfel and Joseph Bokor began a relationship in 1986 and lived together starting in 1994.
- They separated in July 1997; Kloepfel moved out.
- In August 1997, Kloepfel obtained a restraining order prohibiting Bokor from contacting, threatening, or approaching her at home or work.
- Bokor repeatedly violated no-contact and restraining orders from 1997 through at least 2000, resulting in multiple criminal convictions, including harassment (domestic violence), making harassing phone calls, and felony stalking.
- Bokor repeatedly contacted Kloepfel, including approximately 640 calls to her home and about 100 calls to her workplace, and contacted others he believed were dating her.
- While subject to no-contact orders, Bokor threatened to kill Kloepfel and threatened to kill a man she dated.
- Bokor surveilled Kloepfel’s home and interfered in her personal relationships, including contacting another man’s wife to imply an affair.
- The trial court found Bokor’s conduct severely disrupted Kloepfel’s life, prevented normal dating relationships, and caused her to take evasive measures such as spending weekends away and requiring workplace safety arrangements.
- Kloepfel did not obtain medical or psychological treatment, but testified to symptoms including nervousness, sleeplessness, hypervigilance, and stomach upset.

## Issues

1. Whether a plaintiff alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress (outrage) must prove severe emotional distress through objective symptomatology and medical diagnosis.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Kloepfel.
- The court held that objective symptomatology and medical diagnosis are not required to prove severe emotional distress in intentional infliction of emotional distress (outrage).
- The court concluded the objective symptomatology requirement applies to negligent infliction of emotional distress, not to intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The court upheld the damages award of $60,256.

## Legal Principles

- “Outrage” and “intentional infliction of emotional distress” refer to the same tort in Washington.
- Elements of outrage/IIED are: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct; (2) intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress; and (3) severe emotional distress resulting from the conduct.
- Proof of “severe emotional distress” in IIED/outrage does not require expert testimony, medical diagnosis, or objective symptomatology; the fact-finder may rely on lay testimony and circumstantial evidence.
- The objective symptomatology limitation is a screening doctrine used in negligent infliction of emotional distress claims and should not be imported into IIED/outrage because the intentional-tort elements already substantially limit liability.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that a plaintiff may establish severe emotional distress for IIED/outrage without medical diagnosis or objective symptomatology, and it affirmed liability and damages where prolonged, order-defying harassment and threats caused substantial life disruption and physical stress symptoms.


Kloepfel v. Bokor, 149 Wn. 2d 192 (Wash. 2003)