Roach v Stern

Roach v Stern - in a civilized community.-Jury might...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Roach v. Stern 1) Procedural Background: - Siblings sue for IIED - Supreme Court (King’s County) dismissed complaint - Plaintiffs appealed 2) Key Facts: - Debbie Tay died and cremated o Portion of remains given to defendant, Chaunce Hayden - Brought remains onto show o Participants in program handled and made crude remarks about the cremated remains - Plaintiffs telephoned producer and manger of the radio station to demand that such conversations cease 3) Issue: Whether defendant’s action were “outrageous” to satisfy cause of action for IIED 4) Holding: Plaintiffs stated cause of action for emotional distress, as jury could find defendant’s conduct outrageous 5) Reasoning: - Conduct complained must be “so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: in a civilized community.-Jury might reasonably conclude that the manner in which Tays remains were handled, for entertainment purposes and against the express wishes of her family, went beyond the bounds of decent behavior 6) Disposition: Reversed (motion denied, and complaint reinstated by Supreme Court Appellate Division) Dissenting Opinion 1) Holding: Conduct of defendants not so extreme and outrageous in nature as to be utterly intolerable in a civilized community 2) Reasoning:-Cant be decided in vacuum with total disregard for Debbie Tays extreme behavior-Hayden brought the decedents remains on the air as a memorial to her because the only happiness Debbie had was the Howard Stern show-No indication that defendants acted out of a desire to cause the plaintiff distress...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online