Meehan, Boyle, Black & Bogdanow Expand Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Caselaw in Massachusetts

In Massachusetts, the law recognizes the right of individuals to seek compensation for both negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress caused by extreme or outrageous conduct. Immediate family members of an injured party may sometimes seek compensation for intentional infliction of emotional distress if they can show they have contemporaneous knowledge of the defendant’s extreme and outrageous conduct and have experienced a severe emotional response stemming from the injury or death of their loved one. The Defendant’s conduct is intentional, as opposed to negligent; if they knew or should have known it would cause another emotional distress. 

In a recent Summary Judgment decision in Romelia Gallardo, et al. v Ashley and Michael Monturio, No.  2181CV01767 (Middlesex Superior Ct. 8/11/21), obtained by Attorneys Jennifer Denker and Sarah Crossen at Meehan, Boyle, Black & Bogdanow, a Massachusetts court found that the children of an elderly woman wrongfully killed in a hit-and-run in the parking lot of her own apartment complex, where the defendant driver fled the scene in order to attend a job interview and evaded the police, was entitled to pursue their claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress at trial. 

In her decision, Judge Sarah Ellis wrote, “Emotional distress, as the concept has evolved in this Commonwealth, is a severe psychological shock directly resulting from experiencing or witnessing the effects of a defendant’s conduct. See Dziokonski, supra, and cases cited. See also Ferriter v. Daniel O’Connell’s Sons, 381 Mass. 507 (1980).” Plaintiffs presented evidence that the decedent’s children suffered immense emotional distress from the knowledge that the defendant fled the scene of the accident in order to attend a job interview, offered no care or compassion to their mother as she lay dying in the parking lot, failed to provide her identity to 911 operators and lied to them about what had happened, claiming the decedent had fallen, and evaded police for most of the day before the decedent’s children became aware of the defendant’s actions. Judge Ellis found these facts sufficient to withstand summary judgement. 

Furthermore, in denying the Defendants’ motion for summary judgement, the court clarified that emotional distress claims are distinct from wrongful death claims, as emotional distress is a separate wrong that results from the psychological impact of the defendant’s conduct. In her opinion, Judge Ellis explained, “A claim for damages based on emotional distress does not include an administrator’s claim for loss of consortium, which will be present in every wrongful death action such as this. Since emotional distress is a wrong to the plaintiff distinct from that done to the statutory beneficiaries of the decedent, it is not a duplicative remedy and is not preempted by the wrongful death statute.” This distinction means that plaintiffs in the Commonwealth may recover for both the wrongful death of their loved one and, where present, any emotional distress caused by the defendant’s conduct. 

The Defendant sought reconsideration of the Court’s decision on this issue of intentional infliction of emotional distress, but the court again denied the Defendants’ motion and let the claims continue to trial. The Defendant’s interlocutory appeal of this decision was also denied by a single justice of the Appeals Court, permitting the claims to continue to trial. 

The evolving case law on emotional distress underscores the importance of understanding both the specific requirements for these claims and the broader legal context in which they are asserted. For anyone considering a personal injury claim, consulting with a legal expert is crucial to navigating this complex area of law.

By: Sarah Crossen