BENNETT (EARL) VS. MALCOMB (CARTER)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: AUGUST 20, 2010; 10:00 A.M.
TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2009-CA-000871-MR
EARL BENNETT
v.
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM OWEN CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE STEPHEN L. BATES, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 08-CI-00074
CARTER MALCOMB
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: TAYLOR, CHIEF JUDGE; ACREE, JUDGE; BUCKINGHAM,1
SENIOR JUDGE.
ACREE, JUDGE: Earl Bennett, the appellant, seeks reversal of the Owen Circuit
Court’s order granting summary judgment for the appellee, Carter Malcomb. The
1
Senior Judge David C. Buckingham sitting as Special Judge by assignment of the Chief Justice
pursuant to Section 110(5)(b) of the Kentucky Constitution and Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS)
21.580.
circuit court determined that Mr. Bennett’s claim was barred by the statute of
limitations. We affirm.
On April 28, 2008, Mr. Bennett filed a complaint alleging that Mr.
Malcomb intentionally, recklessly and negligently harmed him by pinning him
against a post with a tractor on April 28, 2006. As a result of the incident, Mr.
Bennett suffered physical injury, but sought no psychological treatment. The
complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to KRS 413.140 because
it was brought more than one year after the accrual of the action. Mr. Bennett was
then given leave to amend his complaint. He did so adding a cause of action for
the intentional infliction of emotional distress, otherwise known as the tort of
outrage.
Subsequently, the circuit court granted the appellee’s motion for
summary judgment finding the tort of outrage inappropriate because traditional tort
remedies existed. Thus, the claim was barred by the one-year statute of limitations
applicable to traditional torts and not the five-year statute of limitations applicable
to the tort of outrage.
This Court must determine if Mr. Bennett may bring a claim of
outrage. If he cannot, then the statute of limitations bars recovery. The tort of
outrage
is intended as a “gap-filler”, proving redress for extreme
emotional distress where traditional common law actions
-2-
do not. Where an actor’s conduct amounts to the
commission of one of the traditional torts such as assault,
battery, or negligence for which recovery for emotional
distress is allowed, and the conduct was not intended
only to cause extreme emotional distress in the victim,
the tort of outrage will not lie. Recovery for emotional
distress in those instances must be had under the
appropriate traditional common law action.
Banks v. Fritsch, 39 S.W.3d 474, 481 (Ky. App. 2001). As mentioned above, Mr.
Bennett’s original complaint set forth various traditional torts alleging that Mr.
Malcomb’s actions were intended to cause him physical harm. Further, Mr.
Bennett testified in his deposition that prior to pinning him with the tractor, Mr.
Malcomb passed him and stated “if you’re still there I’ll run you through.” There
is no evidence that the conduct was intended only to cause extreme emotional
distress. Instead, there is every indication that, to the extent the conduct was
intentional, it was intended to cause physical harm.
Therefore, because recovery could appropriately be sought under the
traditional common law torts and the evidence shows the actions were not intended
to only cause emotional distress, a cause of action for outrage is not appropriate.
Furthermore, the tort of outrage was intended to fill the gap left by outrageous
conduct that harms a plaintiff, but leaves him without recovery via the traditional
torts. The tort of outrage was not intended to provide a cause of action for
plaintiffs who simply failed to bring a traditional tort claim within the statute of
limitations.
The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
-3-
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
C. Ed Massey
Erlanger, Kentucky
Robert B. Cetrulo
Edgewood, Kentucky
-4-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.