Arne M. Grimsby, Appellant v. Werner E. Samson, Respondents

Summary

The court held that the complaint stated a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress because it alleged reckless and outrageous conduct directed at the decedent that caused severe distress to her present, immediate-family member. It therefore reversed the CR 12(b)(6) dismissal and remanded for further proceedings, while declining to require a statement of facts for appellate review of a dismissal based solely on failure to state a claim. The court also rejected the alternative third-party emotional-distress theory discussed in Dillon; Utter, J., concurring, would have retained that theory, while Wright, J., dissenting, would have affirmed dismissal because the alleged conduct was passive and could permit duplicative recovery.