## Facts

- Christiane A. Zalnis bought a 1978 Datsun from Thoroughbred Datsun Car Company and paid the full balance shortly after taking possession.
- After the sale, the dealership president, C.S. Trosper, learned the dealership had miscalculated the price and incurred an approximate $1,000 loss.
- Trosper instructed employees to eliminate the loss by demanding additional money from Zalnis, retrieving the car, or recouping the difference from the salesperson’s salary.
- A dealership salesperson, Marc Anthony, called Zalnis and told her to bring the car back because it was being “recalled.”
- When Zalnis arrived and refused to surrender the car without documentation of a recall, the dealership nevertheless took the car from her.
- Zalnis alleged that Anthony insulted her with a derogatory epithet, followed her through the showroom, yelled and used abusive language, physically grabbed her arm in a threatening manner, and repeatedly intimidated her while asserting the dealership would keep the car.
- Zalnis contacted her attorney from the dealership; after counsel spoke with Trosper, the car was returned.
- The record indicated Trosper knew Zalnis had witnessed her husband’s suicide and knew she remained emotionally fragile.

## Issues

1. Whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Zalnis, a reasonable jury could find defendants’ conduct “extreme and outrageous” sufficient to support intentional infliction of emotional distress under Colorado law.
2. Whether the trial court properly resolved the “outrageousness” element as a matter of law on summary judgment.

## Decision

- The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed the partial summary judgment dismissing the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.
- The court held that, on Zalnis’s version of events, reasonable jurors could find the conduct extreme and outrageous.
- The court concluded summary judgment was improper because the issue should be decided by the trier of fact.

## Legal Principles

- Intentional infliction of emotional distress requires extreme and outrageous conduct that intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress.
- Conduct may be deemed outrageous when it goes beyond all bounds of decency tolerated in a civilized community.
- “Outrageousness” may be decided as a matter of law only in clear cases; when reasonable people could differ, it is generally a jury question.
- The analysis considers the totality of the conduct, not isolated insults, including coercive or intimidating actions accompanying verbal abuse.
- Abuse of a position of authority or power may support a finding of outrageous conduct, particularly when used to pressure a person in an economic or transactional setting.
- A defendant’s knowledge of a plaintiff’s particular susceptibility to emotional distress is relevant; conduct may be outrageous when directed at someone known to be especially vulnerable.
- On summary judgment, courts must accept the nonmovant’s evidence as true and draw reasonable inferences in the nonmovant’s favor.

## Conclusion

Because Zalnis presented evidence that the dealership lured her to the premises under a false pretense, took her car, and subjected her to threats, harassment, and physical intimidation despite knowledge of her emotional fragility, the court held that a jury could find the conduct outrageous and reinstated the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim for trial.


Zalnis v. Thoroughbred Datsun Car Co., 645 P.2d 292 (Colo. App. 1982)