Dickens v. Puryear (1981) 302 N.C. 437, 276 S.E.2d 325,1981 N.C.

Facts:In April 1975, after it became known that Dickens, the plaintiff, had shared sex, alcohol, and marijuana with the daughter of defendants, Earl and Ann Puryear, the plaintiff was lured into a rural area of North Carolina where he was then threatened with a pistol, handcuffed to farm machinery and severely beaten, and threatened with castration. After the beating, the defendant told Dickens to go home, get his things, and leave the state of North Carolina; otherwise he would be killed. More than one but less than three years after the incident, Dickens filed suit against the defendants alleging they intentionally inflicted mental distress upon him citing permanent mental and emotional distress, physical damage to his nervous system, as well as loss of income.The court issued a summary judgment in the case whereby they ruled for the defendant citing the plaintiff to have exceeded the one year statute of limitations that applied to assault and battery.Plaintiff appealed the decision arguing that the facts of the motion support the claim for intentional infliction of mental distress, a claim which falls under the three year period of limitations. Issue: Whether the threat of future harm constitutes a tortious act that extends to that of intentional infliction of emotional distress? Holding: The Supreme Court reversed the lower court s summary judgment, suggesting that the facts of the case are sufficient to indicate that the plaintiff may be able to prove through a trial that the intentional infliction of mental distress did in fact occur. It affirmed in part issues where the facts indicate the claim to be applicable to assault and battery. Reasoning: The court in its decision decided that the threat to harm the plaintiff at a later date were he not to abide by the defendant s demands was not one of imminent or immediate harm, therefore, distinct from merely assault. Moreover, it being a threat of the future intended to inflict mental distress made it actionable as an intentional infliction of mental distress. Evaluation:I agree with the court s ruling. A threat indicating that one might be hurt in the future requires that the victim live in a constant mode of fear. The perpetrator of such a threat intentionally hopes to cause that person to live in fear beyond the immediate future since they anticipate that such a threat will result in an action at a later date. This clearly makes the issue of time an issue of significant importance when characterizing it as an issue applicable only to assault. Therefore, I agree that a case may be made at trial that a tortious act was committed to intentionally inflict mental distress which would fall under a three year statutory limit rather than a one.