George V. Jordan Marsh Co. Brief

696 Words Oct 3rd, 2014 3 Pages
1. George v. Jordan Marsh Co., 359 Mass. 244 (Mass. 1971) 2. Facts: Plaintiff Irene George (P) is filing suit against Defendant Jordan Marsh Co. (D) for mental anguish and emotional distress which resulted in two heart attacks. D sold goods on credit to P’s emancipated son, who purchased them on P’s account. D alleged that P stated in writing that she would pay the debts (which she did not incur), even though it is understood that P did not make this guarantee. D then attempted to intimidate P into paying these debts she did not owe by calling her at late hours, by mailing her bills, by sending her letters stating late charges were being added on and that her credit had been revoked, and by numerous other tactics. P suffered great …show more content…
common law which would satisfy these actions as described. Court states that no such common law exists mainly because an issue such as this has not been dealt with by the court, it does not inherently mean there is no tort present. The court also looks at Restatement 2d § 46 which states “One who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another is subject to liability for such emotional distress, and if bodily harm to the other results from it, for such bodily harm.” Restatements 2d would consider the repeated attempt at unnecessary debt recovery the “extreme and outrageous conduct.” 6. Holding: As stated in the case: “one who, without a privilege to do so, by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally causes severe emotional distress to another, with bodily harm resulting from such distress, is subject to liability for such emotional distress and bodily harm even though he has committed no heretofore recognized common law tort.” 7. Court’s Order: As a result of this holding the court has established sufficient law entitles P to have her case heard before trial court. 8. Reason: We can understand the policy rational of the Court in making this decision. Being that there was no explicit law on the books, the Court felt that the best interest of society would call for an establishment of such a rule to allow the case to be heard. As such it is possible for a reasonable person

More about George V. Jordan Marsh Co. Brief

Open Document