## Facts

- Marcia G. Samms, a married woman, alleged she did not encourage and repeatedly repulsed David Eccles’s advances.
- From May to December 1957, Eccles allegedly repeatedly telephoned Samms at various hours, including late at night.
- Eccles allegedly solicited Samms to engage in illicit sexual relations.
- On one occasion, Eccles allegedly came to Samms’s residence in connection with the solicitation and exposed himself.
- Samms alleged the conduct was insulting, indecent, and obscene, and caused great anxiety, fear for her personal safety, and severe emotional distress.
- Samms sought compensatory and punitive damages; the complaint did not allege physical impact or bodily injury.
- The trial court dismissed at pretrial on the ground that the complaint stated no basis for relief; the Utah Supreme Court treated the ruling as akin to summary judgment and reviewed allegations as true, in Samms’s favor.

## Issues

1. Whether Utah law permits recovery for severe emotional distress intentionally caused by outrageous conduct, absent physical impact, bodily injury, or an independent traditional tort.

## Decision

- The Utah Supreme Court reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that, in limited circumstances, a plaintiff may recover for intentional infliction of severe emotional distress without physical injury or another traditional tort.
- Accepting the allegations as true, the pleaded conduct could be found outrageous and intolerable, and sufficient to state a claim.
- Because summary judgment-type dismissal is disfavored where a plausible right to relief could be proven, the case should proceed to trial.

## Legal Principles

- A cause of action may lie for emotional distress alone when the defendant intentionally causes mental distress, or knows distress is substantially certain to result, and the conduct is outrageous and intolerable by generally accepted community standards of decency and morality.
- Mere insults, indignities, or social discourtesies are not actionable; the tort is limited to extreme misconduct.
- Difficulty of proof and administrative concerns do not justify denying relief where the alleged wrongdoing, if proven, would warrant liability.
- On a dismissal equivalent to summary judgment, the court must assume the plaintiff’s allegations are true, construe them favorably to the plaintiff, and deny dismissal unless no recovery could be established under any supported view of the facts.

## Conclusion

Utah recognized a narrowly confined claim for intentional infliction of severe emotional distress, holding that a plaintiff may proceed without alleging physical injury when the defendant’s intentional misconduct is sufficiently outrageous and likely to cause distress of a very serious kind.


Samms v. Eccles, 358 P.2d 344 (Utah 1961)