Emotional Distress: Washington vs. Oregon

In Washington, claims for emotional distress are recognized under intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) and negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED). To succeed in an IIED claim, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant's conduct was outrageous and constituted extreme behavior that goes beyond the bounds of decency. In NIED claims, Washington courts require the plaintiff to demonstrate that they were in the zone of danger of physical harm or that the distress was a direct result of witnessing a traumatic event. Moreover, Washington has refined its emotional distress claims through various cases, defining the parameters and required evidence for such claims.

Oregon recognizes emotional distress claims primarily through intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress as well, but with a slightly different framework. For IIED claims, Oregon courts have established a clear standard where the conduct in question must be intentional and must lead to severe emotional distress. NIED claims in Oregon do not require that the plaintiff be in the zone of danger; rather, plaintiffs can successfully bring a claim if they can show that their emotional distress was a foreseeable result of the defendant's negligent conduct. Oregon also allows for recovery for emotional distress in certain tort claims that involve physical harm.