What Is IIED in Torts?

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) is a tort that occurs when a person's outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another. It requires proof of extreme and outrageous behavior by the defendant.

IIED is grounded in the notion that every person has the right to be free from severe emotional distress inflicted by the unreasonable behavior of others. For a claim of IIED to succeed, the plaintiff must typically prove four elements: (1) the defendant's conduct was intentional or reckless, (2) the conduct was extreme and outrageous, (3) the conduct caused the plaintiff severe emotional distress, and (4) the emotional distress was indeed severe and of a type that a reasonable person would find intolerable.

The standard for what constitutes 'extreme and outrageous' is high. Courts look for conduct that transcends the bounds of decency tolerated by society. Simple insults, mere annoyance, or trivial acts do not satisfy this requirement. For instance, a defendant who engages in a campaign of harassment that includes threats or humiliating acts may cross this threshold, whereas a rude comment would likely not.

Additionally, IIED claims may be invoked in situations where the defendant acts with reckless disregard for the likelihood that their actions would cause emotional harm. This is particularly relevant in cases where the distress suffered is severe, such as when the victim is a member of a group targeted for abuse (e.g., racial or gender discrimination).

Several key cases have shaped IIED law, including *Hustler Magazine v. Falwell* (1988) which established that public figures must show actual malice in cases involving emotional distress. The court ruled against the plaintiff in this context, emphasizing the importance of free speech even when the speech is distasteful. Other notable cases include *Taylor v. Vallelunga* (1966), where the court found that witnessing the physical assault of a loved one can constitute IIED if it is tied to outrageous conduct.

Ultimately, IIED requires careful consideration of both the defendant’s actions and the plaintiff’s emotional response, subject to strict scrutiny of the context and societal norms.

• 1Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988) - Established the actual malice standard for public figures in IIED cases.
• 2Taylor v. Vallelunga (1966) - Held that witnessing the assault of a loved one can support an IIED claim if the conduct was outrageous.
• 3Chanko v. American Broadcasting Companies (2012) - Clarified that IIED claims must prove a direct relationship between conduct and distress.
• 4Doe v. Taylor Independent School District (2016) - Addressed reckless disregard in the context of IIED in a school setting.

• what-are-the-elements-of-iied
• how-is-iied-different-from-negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress
• what-defenses-are-available-against-iied-claims