Mutrie V. MCDonough

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

STATE OF MArNE YORK, SS SUPERIOR COURT C!Vli ACTION DOCKET ~0. CV"14-94 J'(IN-~OR- PATRICK F IVfUTRIE and JOHANN AM_ ML TRIE. as parents and next best friend ofETllAN 1 .MUTRIE, a minor, 11-177-l'f Plaintiffs, ORDER ADAM: MCDONOUGH and LINDSAY :\1CDON0UGH, individually and in their capacity as parents, I ega! guardians. and next best friend of TYLER MCDO:--JOIJGH, ammor. Defendants_ L Background This is a pe10onal injul) suit brought by the parents of Ethan J Mutrie ("the Mutriei') against Adam and Lindsay McDonough, parents of Tyler McDonough ('the McDonoughs"). According to the facts alleged in the complaint, Tyler McDonough placed Ethan Mutric in a headlock, slammed him into the ground, and injured him while the two were playmg in a youth football game between Scarborough and Saco Relevant here is Count II, wb.ich alleges a claim for Kegligent lnflictJon of Emotional Distress ("NIED"\ (Compl 5-6) The McDonoughs have filed a motion to dismiss Count II, allegmg that the drum is subsumed by the other ton drums, including Count IV (Intenllonal Infliction of Emotional Distress), and fails to stale a claim for which relief can be granted. 1 II. Motion to Dismiss Standan:l ln ruling on a mot1on to dismiss, tb.e court views tb.e facts m the complamt as true and admitted_ Saunders the complaint l'. T1sher, 1006 :\1E 94, ~ 8, 902 A.2d 830 The court ·'examine['] to detcnn1ne whether it >ets forth clements of a cause of act1on or alleges facts that would entitle the plwntifTto relief pursuant to ~orne legal theory -,/Joe v_ t:rraham, 2009 ME 88, ~ 2, 977 A 2d 391, quoting Saundas, 2006 _ME 94, 1; 8, 902 A 2d 830 To dismiss for failure to state a claim. the court must determine it is "beyond doubt that [the J plaintiff is entitled to no relief under any set offacts that m1ght be proven in support of the daim ,. Dragomrr v_ Spnng Harbor Hasp., 2009 ME 51,~ 15, 970 A.2d 310, quoting Plimpron v. Gerrard, 668 A2d 882, 885 (Me. 1995). m. Discussion The parties' arguments center on whether the Lav.- Court's decision in Curtis v Porter, 2001 \.1E 158, 784 A 2d 18. mandates dismissal of Count II. In CurtL~, tb.e Law Court contrasted :"flED with the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress ("'liED'"), noting ''the universe of those who may be liable in tort for the negligent infl1ction of emot:Jonal distress is much more limited" ('urtis, 2001 ME 158, 1) 17, 784 A2d 18_ The Court recognized three circumstances in which a claim for ~D lies (!)bystander liabiliry actions, (2) where a special relationship exists between rhe tortfeasor and the injured claimant, and (3) where !he tortfeasor has com mined another tort in addition to :'-liED. 1 !d. ~ 19 The Court continued [\\lhen the separate tort at issue allows a plaintiff to recover for emotJOnal suffenng, the claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress is usually subsumed In any award entered on rhe separate tort. 1 In orhcr words, unlc~s (1) or {2) arc present, there JS no standalone ~1ED tort. 2 Id (emphasis added) At issue 1n Cums were only t\.\'0 claims: one for ITED and the second for NlED. T11e Court ultimately held that the plaint1ff could not recover on her :-.JED claim if she failed to prevail on her !TED claim: Curtis may rcco>er her emotwnal diotres,., damages through [her liED] cla.m. She cannot, howc<"er, in the absence of a special relationship or a cla.m of bystander hab!litJ, pres' her clann to recover for her emotlOnal distress1f she docs not prevail on the separate Jntennonaltnlliction datm. Thu~, her negligent inflictton cla.m is subsumed 1n the tntentwnal mlliction claim, and the coun appropnately granted summary JUdgment on that clatm_ T11e McDonoughs read Curtls to mean NlED claims cannot be brought together with an liED claim when they arise from the same harm. The Mutries maintain Curtls means they cannot recover for the same damages under both :N1ED and liED. The Law Coun held that Curtis could not recover on her l\1ED claim if her UED claim failed for a simple reason. her only remaining claim would be NIED_ Because there is no standalone ton for NIED without a duty (such as in bystander and special relationship cases), Curtis' I'<lED claim failed as a matter of Jaw. Curtls, 2001 ME 158, 'If 19 T111s is not the situation in the present case because the Mutnes bnng separate cla.ms for Negligence (Count I) and Assault and Battery (Count ill). Thus even if the Mutries' claim for I1ED fails, they can still recover for emotional harm under the ?'liED theory because they can recover for emotional harm under the other torts pled_ W!11te v B1shop, 2003 WL 21919837 at *2 (_Me. Super. July 7, 2003) (holding negligent operation of a mutor vehicle was a separate tort adequate to support emotwnal distress claim Linder 3 (urns); see also Hertnksen v_ Cameron, 622 A2d 1135, 1143 (\1e 1993) (notmg plaintiff could recover for ern oti on·ol '1nj uries from physKal assaults)_ CurtiS did provide some sound advice for pleading pracllcc_ [Ailthough neg!Jgcnt inllJc!ion clwms are now routmely added to complaints stat•ng a cause cf act:Jon m tort, this prncllce IS rarely necessary unless the cl<urn JS made by a bystander or agwn>l one Wllh a special rclatJ onship to the plaintiff ld ~ 20 While Jt may not be necessary to bring duplicative causes of action in tort cases, electing to do so docs not mean a party fails to state a claim Litigation strategy is not for the court to decide on a motion to dismis:; Fmally, if the Mutnes do ultimately recover for emotional dJstress, they cannot also recover for the same emotional distress on an NIED theory. CurtiS, 2001 .ME 158, ~ 19, 784 A 2d 18_ The McDonoughs may later raise this if there is a risk of duplicative recovery, but a motion to dism•ss is not the appropriate 'ehicle to reduce damage awards that have yet to materiahze. The Defendants Motion to Dismiss is hereby DE'illill. SO ORDERF])_ DATE: John O'Neil, Ir_ Justice, Superior Court 4 ATTOR..'IEY FOR PLAmTIFFS. JEFFREY EDWARDS PRETJ rLAHF.RTY BELIVEAU PACHIOS LLP PO BOX 9546 PORTLAND ME 04112 ~ TTORNEY FOR DEFE.NTI-\1\TS. MATTHEWK LlBBY MONAGHfu'l LEAHY LLP P 0 BOX 7046 PORTLAND ME 04112

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.