Opinion
No. 4:01cv0069AS
May 29, 2002
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on Defendants City of Lafayette, Indiana and Fred Taylor's motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Subsequent to the filing of the motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Plaintiffs moved to amend the complaint. For the following reasons the motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED and the Plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint is GRANTED.
I. BACKGROUND
This action involves several claims by Robert, Patricia and David Foley against the City of Lafayette, Fred Taylor and the National Railroad Passenger Corporation that occurred in December of 2000. The Foleys alleged that the above named parties engaged in numerous intentional and negligent actions, omissions and practices. Their claims include both federal and state causes of action.
The court will briefly summarize the events that give rise to the various claims involved in this matter.
In December 2000, Robert Foley, who is physically disabled, traveled from Charleston, West Virginia to Lafayette, Indiana on a train owned and operation by the Defendant National Railroad Passenger Corporation. (P's Compl. at ¶ 3). David Foley, Robert's son, accompanied him on the trip. (Id. at ¶ 5). According to the Plaintiffs neither the passenger train nor the Riehle Plaza Station were equipped to handle disabled passengers such as Robert. The complaint alleges that as a result of varying degrees of culpability, ranging from negligence to willful and wanton conduct, on the part of the named Defendants, Robert and David Foley suffered various physical and emotional injuries and seeks damages for those injuries as well as other specified monetary losses. The present motion by the City of Lafayette and Taylor seeks a dismissal of one of those many claims, specifically, the claim by David Foley for either negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress as a result of the events occurring at the Riehle Plaza Station in Lafayette, Indiana. (P's Compl. at ¶ 22-27). This court has jurisdiction over the present action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 1367.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule 12(c) provides that after the pleadings are closed any party may move for judgment on the pleadings. FED. R. CIV. P 12(c). In assessing the merits of the claims presented in the complaint, a differential standard is to be applied and the motion should not be granted unless it appears beyond doubt that a plaintiff cannot prove any facts that would support his claim for relief. Frey v. Bank One, 91 F.3d 45, (7th Cir. 1996) rhg denied, cert. denied 117 S.Ct. 954, 519 U.S. 1113 (1997). Austin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 20 F. Supp.2d 1254 (N.D.Ind. 1998).
III. DISCUSSION A. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
This court in Imhoff v. Kmart Stores of Indiana, Inc., 149 F. Supp.2d 559, 569-70 (N.D.Ind. 2001) recently discussed the necessary requirements for a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress as established under Indiana law. The court strongly encourages both parties to read this case as well as the Indiana cases cited therein to ensure that such a proper claim can be made on the facts of this case. In particular the Plaintiff should amend the complaint in accordance with the principles found in Ledbetter v. Ross, 725 N.E.2d 120 (Ind.Ct.App. 2000), Bradley v. Hall, 720 N.E.2d 747, 753 (Ind.Ct.App. 1999) and Cullison v. Medley, 570 N.E.2d 27, 31 (Ind. 1991). The court is reminded that such claims are highly fact intensive and may not be the subject of a motion to dismiss unless the complaint is devoid of the elements required for an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim (i.e. failure to allege sufficient facts to support the claim that the conduct was severe and outrageous or intent to cause emotional harm). See Imhoff, 149 F. Supp.2d. at 573. In light of this court's decision to allow the Plaintiffs to amend the complaint and to allege facts consistent with a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress the motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to such a claim is presently denied.
B. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
In Groves v. Taylor, 729 N.E.2d 569 (Ind. 2000), the Indiana Supreme Court addressed the necessary components of a claim for negligent infliction of emotional address. In Groves, Indiana's highest court sought to modify the direct impact test required for negligent infliction of emotional distress to include recovery for a plaintiff that has established "direct involvement" with the event that caused death or serious injury. See 729 N.E.2d at 573. The requirements for such a claim include: 1) the plaintiff must sustain serious emotional trauma normally expected to occur in a reasonable person; 2) the plaintiff must have had sufficient connection with the injury-causing event by showing either a direct impact or direct involvement with the injury-causing event. Id. at 573. To sustain a claim under the latter "direct involvement" formula, a plaintiff must allege the following criteria: 1) the injury suffered must meet a certain level of severity; 2) the plaintiff's relationship to the injured party is analogous to a spouse, parent, child, grandparent, grandchild, or sibling; and 3) the plaintiff must have observed the traumatic event contemporaneously to the negligent act or came on the scene soon after the severe injury took place. Id. A cursory examination of David Foley's allegations in the complaint reveals that the injuries suffered by Robert Foley were not characterized as the type that would result in death or severe injury. See P's Compl. at ¶ 25. Nonetheless, in order not to foreclose a potentially viable claim, the court will allow leave to amend the complaint to allege additional facts, if any exist, to support a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, if able to do so.
The Plaintiffs should not view this leave to amend as an opportunity to proceed with an unviable claim on this issue. The court strongly urges counsel for the Plaintiffs to review Groves in light of the facts of this case. Among other things, a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress requires that the loved one suffer a serious injury and that the severity of such an injury be significant. While the degree of severity is a factual question that cannot be determined at this particular stage, the Plaintiffs must be aware of the allegations it must prove in order to sustain a viable claim. Cook v. Winfrey, 141 F.3d 322, 331 (7th Cir. 1998) (factual question not appropriately resolved on a motion to dismiss the complaint.)
IV. CONCLUSION
For the following reasons the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to enter an order DENYING Defendant Taylor's and the City of Lafayette's Motion for judgment on the pleadings [Docket entry No. 28-1], GRANTING the Plaintiff's Motion to Amend their complaint [Docket entry No. 37-1], DENYING Defendant Taylor's and the City of Lafayette's Motion to Strike [Docket entry No. 33-1] as moot and DENYING Plaintiffs' motion for hearing [Docket entry No. 39-1]. IT IS SO ORDERED.