Intentional infliction of emotional distress

Definition

Intentional infliction of emotional distress is a tort that occurs when one person intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional suffering to another through extreme or outrageous conduct. This concept is rooted in the idea that certain actions can be so harmful that they go beyond the bounds of decency and cause significant psychological harm to an individual. The tort emphasizes the importance of mental well-being and recognizes that emotional injuries can be just as damaging as physical ones.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous, going beyond mere insults or annoyances.
2. The emotional distress caused must be severe enough that it would be expected to affect a reasonable person's mental health.
3. Intentional infliction of emotional distress claims often arise in cases involving harassment, stalking, or other forms of severe mistreatment.
4. This tort requires proof of intent or recklessness on the part of the defendant; negligence is not sufficient for a claim.
5. Many jurisdictions require the emotional distress to be corroborated by evidence, such as medical records or testimony from mental health professionals.

Review Questions

• What elements must be proven to successfully establish a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress?
  • To establish a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must prove four key elements: first, that the defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous; second, that the defendant intended to cause emotional distress or acted with reckless disregard for the likelihood of causing such distress; third, that the plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress; and fourth, that there is a causal connection between the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's emotional distress.
• Discuss how intentional infliction of emotional distress differs from negligent infliction of emotional distress in terms of required proof and intent.
  • Intentional infliction of emotional distress requires proof that the defendant acted with intent or recklessness, showing a deliberate disregard for causing harm. In contrast, negligent infliction of emotional distress focuses on whether the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care, resulting in emotional harm without necessarily intending to cause it. This distinction highlights the higher standard of proof and level of culpability needed for intentional infliction claims compared to negligent claims.
• Evaluate the role of societal standards in determining what constitutes 'extreme and outrageous' conduct in cases of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
  • Societal standards play a crucial role in defining what is considered 'extreme and outrageous' conduct. Courts often rely on prevailing norms and expectations regarding behavior to assess whether an action crosses the line into unacceptable territory. This evaluation is inherently subjective, as what may seem outrageous in one context may not be viewed the same way in another. Therefore, the evolving nature of societal values influences how these claims are interpreted and adjudicated, impacting both plaintiffs' ability to succeed in their claims and defendants' understanding of acceptable behavior.

Related terms

Tort: A civil wrong that causes harm or loss to another person, leading to legal liability.

Negligent infliction of emotional distress: A related tort where a person causes emotional distress to another through negligent conduct rather than intentional actions.

Outrageous conduct: Behavior that is so extreme and shocking that it goes beyond what is considered acceptable in society, often required to establish a claim for emotional distress.