Patrick v. Union State Bank

This appeal stems from a negligence case brought by the plaintiff, Bridgette Patrick, against the defendant, Union State Bank. The charge was negligence for the failure to properly ensure the identification of an imposter, Jane Doe a.k.a. ôBridgette Patrickö, before opening a checking account on behalf of the imposter in PlaintiffÆs name.

The facts of the case allege that an imposter, using a temporary driverÆs license belonging to Plaintiff and without PlaintiffÆs permission, opened an account at the Union State Bank under the name ôBridgette Patrick.ö The temporary license used did not have a photograph. Defendant did not verify the phone number or social security number of the imposter, despite a noticeable discrepancy between the signature appearing on the driverÆs license and that of the imposter. The imposter then used the checks in PlaintiffÆs name to fraudulently obtain merchandise in several townships. Plaintiff was subsequently arrested by a number of those townships and forced to spend a total of nearly two weeks in jail.

Plaintiff argued that the negligence of Defendant was the direct cause of her arrest, leading to her pain and humiliation.

In support of her case, Plaintiff argued that Defendant had a duty to make a reasonable effort to verify the identity of persons attempting to open an account; that the Defendant failed in that duty; and the direct result of that failure was Plaintif

. . .
Testimony in the lower court showed that this behavior was a part of a sales policy at Grubbs that often led to customers becoming upset, and that called for salespeople to keep customers at the store until they purchased a car. Four doctors, on of which was called by the Defendant, testified that Plaintiff had suffered severe emotional distress as a result of the incident and that this distress resulted in long term effects on Plaintiff. Defendant argued that Plaintiff did not suffer distress beyond what was normal for any high powered negotiation, and that even if he did suffer sever emotional distress it was caused by his physical disabilities, not by the sales technique. Issue Did GrubbÆs sales techniques amount to reckless and intentional infliction of emotional distress on Plaintiff? Decision Yes, GrubbÆs salesman, in following the sales policy of Defendant, did act recklessly to intentionally inflict emotional distress on Plaintiff. Reason Conduct is sufficiently extreme and outrageous to result in liability where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized society
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Plaintiffs Defendant, Union Bank, Reasons California, Furthermore DefendantÆs, Supreme Court, Reason Conduct, Reason Defendant, Defendant NRC, Dr Hadden, Reasons Consideration, lower court, summary judgement, emotional distress, defendant argues, security guards, court appeals, prospective advantage, contractual rights, criminal acts, supreme court, emotional distress plaintiff, light sold northeast, security guards premises, providing security guards, violate lanham act,
Approximate Word count = 4425
Approximate Pages = 18 (250 words per page)

More Essays on Patrick v. Union State Bank