Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

You are currently browsing the archive for the Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress category.

$1.38 Million Verdict for Elderly Victim of CPD Abuse

October 21, 2011 in City of Chicago, Excessive Force, False Arrest, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Malicious Prosecution, State Court, Verdict by Adele Nicholas | No comments

A Cook County jury returned a verdict of $1.38 million on October 14 for a 67-year-old woman who suffered a heart attack and stroke after being shoved to the ground by 25th District Chicago police officer Jorge Cerda.

According to Plaintiff’s attorneys Jeff Neslund and Michael Robbins, Officer Cerda was trying to arrest the plaintiff’s daughter on the porch of her home when he shoved the plaintiff to the ground in the doorway. Plaintiff’s head hit the marble floor, causing subdural bleeding. When the plaintiff went to the police station to complain about the rough treatment, Cerda arrested her, charged her with aggravated assault and threatened to have her deported.

Plaintiff had a heart attack while in the police lock up and was hospitalized for two days. Only an hour after she was discharged, she was readmitted to the hospital, suffering an ischemic stroke, which left her permanently paralyzed on her left side.

The plaintiff asserted claims for battery, false arrest, malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The City of Chicago employed its foolish “no settlement” policy and offered the Plaintiff nothing to resolve the case prior to trial.

$333k Verdict Against Chicago Police Officers who Shot Family Pet

August 21, 2011 in Excessive Force, False Arrest, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Verdict by Adele Nicholas | 2 comments

A Chicago jury awarded $333,000 to a family whose black lab “Lady” was shot and killed by Chicago police officers during a search at their South side home in 2009. The search turned up no evidence of criminal activity, and the dog was friendly and non-threatening, according to the Plaintiffs. Teenage brothers Thomas and Darren Russell were home during the search. Thomas testified that he answered the door when police knocked and asked to lock up the dog before they came in. The officers refused, and when the friendly pooch rounded the corner wagging its tail, Officer Richard Antonsen fired his duty weapon, killing the dog. To make matters worse, the officers arrested Thomas and charged him with obstruction. He was found not guilty.

The jury awarded $175,000 to Thomas, $85,000 to Darren and $35,000 each to the boys’ parents, who were not home during the execution of the warrant. The jury also hit Antonsen with $2,000 in punitive damages and a supervisor on the scene with $1,000 in punitives.

The case is Russell v. City of Chicago, et al., 10 C 525, and was tried before Judge Marovich. Smith, Johnson & Anholt represented the plaintiffs. Corporation counsel represented the city.

Summary Judgment Denied on Intentional Infliction Claim against Chicago Police

August 18, 2011 in City of Chicago, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress by Adele Nicholas | No comments

Intentional infliction of emotional distress is a tort claim that is notoriously difficult to plead and prove. The elements seem simple enough: that the defendant’s conduct was “extreme and outrageous”; that the defendant acted with the intention to cause severe emotional distress to the plaintiff (or with reckless disregard for a substantial likelihood that his conduct would cause severe emotional distress); and that severe emotional distress actually resulted from the defendant’s conduct. In practice, such claims are nearly always challenged and frequently dismissed, usually based on a finding that the plaintiff’s emotional distress was not sufficiently severe.

In an interesting decision yesterday, Judge Elaine Bucklo of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied the City of Chicago’s motion for summary judgment on an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim brought by Chicago resident Maritza Figueroa against two Chicago police officers, Michael Cosentino and Rosemary Accardo. The suit arises from an alleged incident in which Defendant-Officer Accardo threatened to shoot and kill Figueroa’s daughter (also a plaintiff in the case) and Defendant-Officer Cosentino grabbed the daughter by the hair. The officers allegedly fabricated charges against Figueroa to justify their arrest. The complaint alleges that the officers deliberately taunted the plaintiffs and joked about the charges they were going to fabricate, including a false claim that Figueroa jumped on an officer’s back.

Figueroa testified that after the incident she cried a lot, vomited, and eventually sought medical treatment for anxiety. The City argued that this presented insufficient evidence that Figueroa experienced severe emotional distress. The court disagreed, finding that there was a triable issue of fact with regard to whether Figueroa’s distress was sufficiently severe.

The case is Rosario et al. v. City of Chicago, 10 C 6067. The City is represented by outside counsel: Travis Richardson and Myron F. Mackoff. Shiller Preyar and Hamilton Law Office represent the plaintiffs.