## Facts

- A trade association of Los Angeles rubbish collectors maintained a practice that one member should not take another member’s account without paying a set price, with disputes handled by its board.
- A member, Abramoff, previously held a rubbish-collection account with Acme Brewing Co. and complained after losing it.
- Kobzeff, another member, obtained the Acme contract to be performed by his son-in-law, John W. Siliznoff, who was not a member of the association.
- Association representatives summoned Kobzeff and Siliznoff and, according to evidence credited by the jury, threatened Siliznoff with physical harm, damage to his truck, and being put out of business if he did not pay Abramoff and join the association.
- At a board meeting, the association’s president allegedly asserted the board controlled trash collection in the city; after extended discussion, Siliznoff agreed to join and to pay Abramoff $1,850.
- Siliznoff executed promissory notes totaling $1,850, but did not pay any of them.
- Siliznoff later became seriously frightened and ill, including vomiting and missing several days of work.

## Issues

1. Whether the promissory notes were unenforceable because they were procured by duress and lacked valid consideration.
2. Whether California law permits recovery for intentional infliction of severe emotional distress based on extreme, unprivileged threats of physical violence, even if the conduct does not meet the technical elements of an independent traditional tort such as assault.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court affirmed judgment for Siliznoff.
- The association could not recover on the promissory notes; the jury could find they were obtained by duress and unsupported by legitimate consideration.
- The court recognized intentional infliction of emotional distress as an independent tort and upheld compensatory damages for Siliznoff’s severe emotional distress and resulting physical illness.
- The court upheld punitive damages as reduced by remittitur and accepted by Siliznoff.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant may be liable for intentionally causing severe emotional distress through extreme and outrageous conduct, even if the conduct does not constitute a separate traditional tort.
- Recovery for intentional infliction of emotional distress includes compensation for resulting bodily harm when the distress produces physical consequences.
- Whether conduct is sufficiently outrageous and whether it caused severe distress are generally questions for the jury.
- Trade association rules and economic self-regulation do not create a privilege to use threats of physical violence or coercive intimidation to control business competition.
- A contract obligation evidenced by promissory notes is voidable when assent is induced by duress, including threats that unlawfully overcome the victim’s free will.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed cancellation of notes signed under coercive threats and held that extreme, unprivileged intimidation intended to cause severe emotional distress supports an independent tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, including compensatory and punitive damages.


State Rubbish Collectors Ass’n v. Siliznoff, 38 Cal. 2d 330, 240 P.2d 282 (Cal. 1952)