Peters v. Detman Coursework

Organize a proof of your conclusion of what the law is using the following CRRAC model (a predictive form of IRAC):

C:  Your conclusion—is the element of the cause of action met?

R:  The rule or principle—the law that tells you the element is met.

E:  Rule proof—explain the cases where you found the rule by giving the critical facts from the case, the reasoning and holding of the court. 

A:  Apply the rule to the facts of the Peters/Detman dispute by showing how they are “like” or “unlike” the facts of the precedent case.  If there is counter analysis, put it here.  This is what you think Detman might assert, but do not say, “Detman may assert…” because there are more effective ways to couch it. 

C:  Restate you conclusion.  “Therefore…”                     

For instance, one of the elements for an IIED claim is that the wrongdoer’s conduct was “outrageous.”  Here is an example of how to prove that Detman’s conduct was outrageous using a synthesized rule from the Dominguez and LaPorte cases. 

A Florida court would hold that Detman’s conduct was outrageous when he refused to turn out his beach lights, so Peters could emerge from her nude swim in privacy.  Outrageous behavior arises when an actor has actual or apparent authority over the other knowing that the other is peculiarly susceptible to emotional distress by reason of “a physical or mental condition or peculiarity,” and demonstrates extreme indifference to the rights of others. Dominguez v. Equitable Life Assurance, 438 So. 2d 58, 62 (Fla. 1983). La Porte v. Assoc. Indep., Inc., 163 So. 2d 267, 268 (Fla. 1964).  

One acting with apparent authority against a susceptible person knowing that emotional distress may result acts outrageously. Dominguez, 438 So. 2d at 62. Dominguez brought suit against his disability insurance company when it ceased payments to him after an agent fraudulently stated to him that he was no longer covered under the policy.  The trial court dismissed his complaint, and the appellate court reversed holding that because Equitable had a position of power over him in wrongly cutting off his payments and being aware of his disabilities and thus his susceptibility to emotional distress, it had acted outrageously against him. Id. 

One acting with extreme indifference to another’s rights acts outrageously. LaPorte, 163 So. 2d. at 268. In this case the court awarded damages to La Porte for the loss of her dog when a trash collector hurled an empty can at it, killed it, and left laughing. The court held that such an act implies great indifference to the persons, property, or rights of others and is outrageous. Id.

In the same way that the insurance agent had a position of power over Dominguez, Detman was in a position of power over Peters in controlling a light switch and the illumination of a small cove where she, a seventy three year-old woman pleaded with him, cold and naked, to turn off the lights so she could emerge with some modesty from the water while he and his friends watched. Like LaPorte, Detman acted with indifference to Peters’ plight in the water, acting outrageously. Therefore, acting from a position of power and great indifference over someone Detman knew was helpless will be held as outrageous conduct by a Florida court.