Emotional Distress: Ohio vs. Michigan

In Ohio, emotional distress claims can generally be categorized as either negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) or intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). For NIED, Ohio courts typically require a close relationship between the plaintiff and the party causing distress, as well as the presence of physical injury or some physical manifestation of the emotional distress. On the other hand, in cases of IIED, plaintiffs must show that the defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous, and that it intentionally or recklessly caused severe emotional distress. Ohio courts focus heavily on the reasonableness of the defendant's conduct and the distress experienced by the plaintiff, making it imperative for claimants to provide adequate evidence of both elements.

Michigan's approach to emotional distress claims also bifurcates into NIED and IIED. However, Michigan does not require a physical injury for NIED claims; the state allows recovery if the emotional distress arises from particularly negligent conduct resulting in a reasonable fear of physical harm. For IIED, Michigan courts require that the conduct be so extreme and outrageous that it goes beyond all bounds of decency. The plaintiff must also show that the distress was severe and that the defendant acted with intent or a reckless disregard for the likelihood of causing distress. Michigan law emphasizes the severity of the alleged emotional distress and the outrageousness of the conduct in assessing claims.