key term - Intentional infliction of emotional distress

Definition

Intentional infliction of emotional distress is a legal claim that allows individuals to seek damages for severe emotional suffering caused by another's outrageous or extreme conduct. This tort requires the plaintiff to prove that the defendant acted intentionally or recklessly, that their behavior was extreme and outrageous, and that it directly resulted in emotional distress that was severe.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The conduct must be so outrageous that it exceeds all bounds of decency, often requiring the behavior to be shocking or intolerable to a reasonable person.
2. Emotional distress claims can arise from various scenarios, including harassment, bullying, or extreme insults.
3. In many jurisdictions, the emotional distress suffered must be verified through medical evidence or expert testimony to prove its severity.
4. Defendants may assert defenses such as free speech or privilege in response to these claims, particularly when statements made were in the context of public interest.
5. Some states have specific requirements regarding the relationship between the parties involved; for instance, close family members may have different standards for proving emotional distress.

Review Questions

• Compare and contrast intentional infliction of emotional distress with negligent infliction of emotional distress.
  • Intentional infliction of emotional distress requires proof that the defendant acted with intent or reckless disregard for the emotional well-being of another, while negligent infliction focuses on careless actions that result in emotional harm. The former typically involves extreme and outrageous conduct, whereas the latter relates to a failure to exercise reasonable care. This distinction is important as it affects the level of proof required and the type of damages that can be recovered.
• Evaluate the role of 'outrageousness' in determining whether a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is valid.
  • The concept of 'outrageousness' is central to establishing a valid claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Courts evaluate whether the defendant's actions are considered extreme or beyond what society deems acceptable. This standard is subjective and can vary depending on the context, which means what may be deemed outrageous in one situation could be viewed differently in another. Thus, successful claims often hinge on demonstrating this level of severity in behavior.
• Analyze how defenses such as free speech impact claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, particularly in relation to public figures.
  • Defenses like free speech significantly impact claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, especially regarding public figures. The First Amendment protects certain expressions, and defendants may argue that their statements are entitled to protection under free speech rights. For public figures, plaintiffs also must show actual malice, meaning they must prove that the defendant acted with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. This creates a higher burden for those seeking damages for emotional distress, as it balances individual rights against societal interests in free expression.

Related terms

Tort:

A civil wrong for which a legal remedy may be sought, typically involving a breach of duty that results in harm or loss to another person.

Negligent infliction of emotional distress: A legal claim arising from emotional distress caused by a defendant's negligent conduct, rather than intentional actions.

Defamation: A statement that injures a third party's reputation; can be considered a tort if the statement is false and harmful.