Patterson v. Wu Family Corporation
Minnesota Court of Appeals
594 N.W.2d 540 (1999)
- Written by Meagan Anglin, JD
Facts
Arthur Patterson (plaintiff) went to the Nankin Café with a group of friends. The Nankin Café, owned by the Wu Family Corporation (Wu Family) (defendant), hired Henry Price as a bouncer for the café. On the night Patterson and his friends went to the café, Price cleared a table for them and told them they would have to go to the bar to order drinks. At that time, Price did not request identification from Patterson to confirm he was of legal drinking age. One of Patterson’s friends bought Patterson an alcoholic drink from the bar and brought it to the table. Price then asked Patterson for his identification, and Patterson told Price that he did not have any. Price instructed Patterson to leave, and as Patterson was leaving, Price grabbed his arm, twisted it, and pushed Patterson out of the café, causing Patterson to fear harm. Patterson claimed that, as a result of this incident, he developed high blood pressure and muscle strains. His doctors were unable to determine the cause of the high blood pressure. Patterson also claimed that as a result of the incident with Price, he developed a fear of being in public places, but he did not seek treatment for such fear. Patterson brought suit against Price and Wu Family for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Wu Family, and Patterson appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Peterson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.