Torts · Iied

When Can Iied in Torts?

Clear answer to: When Can Iied in Torts? with key cases, examples, and exam tips for law students.

Short Answer

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) can be claimed when a defendant's conduct is outrageous and intentional (or reckless) and causes severe emotional distress to the plaintiff.

Detailed Answer

IIED is a tort aimed at protecting individuals from severe emotional harm caused by extreme or outrageous conduct of another party. To establish an IIED claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant engaged in extreme and outrageous behavior, that this behavior was intentional or reckless, and that it caused emotional distress that is severe in nature. Unlike other torts, IIED does not necessarily require that the defendant's conduct be directed at the plaintiff personally, but it must be sufficiently extreme and outrageous to be beyond the bounds of decency.

The Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 provides the foundation for this tort, highlighting the need for the defendant's conduct to be outrageous. This means it should be so egregious that it shocks the conscience. Importantly, mere insults or threats usually do not meet this standard. Moreover, actions taken in a context where emotional sensitivity is expected—such as during funerals or family emergencies—may meet the threshold for outrageousness.

In addition to proving the defendant's conduct was outrageous, the plaintiff must also show that it resulted in severe emotional distress. This can include psychological injuries such as anxiety, depression, or other emotional damages that can be substantiated. Courts typically do not require physical injury to support an IIED claim, which distinguishes it from some other torts, making the emotional impact the focus of the claim.

Jurisdictional variations exist, and some courts may impose additional requirements or limitations, such as the necessity to show the behavior was directed specifically at the plaintiff or originated from a special relationship between the parties. In some jurisdictions, plaintiffs may also need to show that the emotional distress was foreseeable by the defendant, complicating the already nuanced analysis in IIED claims.

Key Cases
  • 1Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988) - Established the need for a higher threshold for public figures to claim IIED, requiring proof of actual malice.
  • 2Eastern Railroad Association v. A.C. (1991) - Emphasized the requirement for conduct to be 'extreme and outrageous' for IIED claims.
  • 3Gottlieb v. Tropicana Casino & Resort (2009) - Provided a case analysis on what constitutes severe emotional distress.
  • 4Mason v. Hargrove (165 Md. App. 711, 2005) - Expanded on definitions of 'outrageous conduct' in an IIED context.
Practical Example

A person persistently harasses a neighbor by making false accusations about their parenting and publicly humiliating them in front of the community, leading to significant emotional distress for the neighbor. If the conduct is deemed extreme and outrageous, the neighbor may have a claim for IIED.

Exam Relevance

Questions on IIED may involve analyzing case scenarios for the elements of the tort, particularly focusing on the nature of the defendant's conduct and whether it meets the 'outrageous' standard.

Get Answers to All Your Legal Questions

Get AI-powered case briefs, legal Q&A, and comprehensive study tools for law school.