What Are The Defenses To Iied in Torts?

Defenses to Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) include consent, justification, and the First Amendment defenses, such as free speech or public interest. Notably, the defendant's conduct must be extreme and outrageous for liability to exist.

In the context of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED), several defenses can be raised by the defendant. One primary defense is 'consent,' where if the plaintiff voluntarily participated in the conduct or behavior that caused the emotional distress, the defendant may not be held liable. This includes situations where the plaintiff was aware of and agreed to the risk of distress.

Another common defense is 'justification.' If the defendant's conduct, although extreme or outrageous, was justified under the circumstances, such as acting in self-defense or protecting others, this can provide a viable defense against IIED claims. The context and necessary circumstances that warrant such justification are crucial in evaluating this defense.

Additionally, First Amendment defenses can be applicable, especially in cases involving speech or expression. For instance, if the defendant's conduct involved free speech on matters of public concern, courts may afford significant protection to such speech, limiting the possibility of finding the defendant liable for IIED. Evaluating the balance between free speech and emotional distress claims often involves scrutinizing whether the speech was directed towards a private individual versus matters of public engagement.

Furthermore, courts have also considered whether the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conduct was sufficiently extreme and outrageous to support an IIED claim. If the defendant can show that their actions, although potentially distressing, did not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct defined by the law, they may negate liability.

Lastly, some jurisdictions recognize the defense of 'emotional resilience,' where the court evaluates the plaintiff's ability to cope and thus questions the severity of their emotional response, which can play into the assessment of damages or liability altogether.

• 1Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988) - Established that IIED claims related to public figures must meet a higher threshold of outrageous conduct and intentional malice.
• 2Taylor v. Metromedia, Inc. (1988) - Highlighted the significance of First Amendment protections in cases where speech has caused emotional distress.
• 3Kreimer v. Morristown (1997) - Discussed the balance between extreme conduct and the right to free speech in an emotional distress context.
• 4Wilkinson v. Downton (1897) - Early case recognized for establishing principles surrounding intentional infliction of emotional harm.
• 5Harris v. Jones (1977) - Associated with the necessity of outrageous conduct in IIED claims.
• 6practicalExample}:
• 7A man secretly films his neighbor arguing with another person and then disseminates the video online, leading to public ridicule of the neighbor. If the neighbor sues for IIED, the man may defend himself by arguing that the speech was commenting on a matter of public interest, thereby invoking First Amendment protections.
• 8examRelevance
• 9Understanding the defenses to IIED will frequently appear in exams, especially in analyzing hypothetical fact patterns involving extreme conduct and potential defenses, including consent and freedom of expression.
• 10relatedQuestions
• 11overview-of-iied-tortshow-to-establish-iied-claimsdifference-between-iied-and-other-intentional-torts