Torts · Emotional Distress

medium frequency

MBE Torts: Emotional Distress

An overview of emotional distress claims in tort law, focusing on intentional infliction and negligent infliction.

Overview

Emotional distress under tort law primarily encompasses two categories: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED). To succeed in an IIED claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant's conduct was outrageous and extreme, and that it intentionally or recklessly caused severe emotional distress. In contrast, NIED claims typically require that the plaintiff was within the zone of danger of physical harm or that they suffered a close relationship to someone who was physically harmed due to the defendant's negligence.

The MBE tests candidates on the nuances of establishing liability for emotional distress, often challenging them to distinguish between cases of IIED and NIED, and to identify the required elements, such as severity of distress and the defendant's conduct. Understanding the applicable standards, such as whether the defendant's actions were extreme and outrageous, and the evidentiary burdens is critical for success on the exam. Furthermore, certain jurisdictions have unique requirements or thresholds that can affect the analysis.

Key Rules
  1. To establish IIED, the defendant's conduct must be extreme and outrageous.
  2. Plaintiff must show severe emotional distress caused by the defendant's actions.
  3. NIED claims may involve physical manifestations of emotional distress.
  4. Proximity to the event or shock resulting from observing a loved one’s injury is often required in NIED claims.
  5. The plaintiff may recover for emotional distress if they were directly impacted or if they had a close relationship to someone impacted by the defendant’s negligence.
Common Question Patterns
  • Identify if the facts constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress.
  • Determine if the plaintiff can recover under a negligent infliction of emotional distress theory.
  • Assess the appropriateness of damages for emotional distress based on the provided fact pattern.
Practice Questions

1. A woman sees her husband severely injured in a car accident caused by a reckless driver. She faints at the scene and later suffers from anxiety and depression. Can she recover for emotional distress?

A. A) Yes, because she suffered physical symptoms.(Correct)

B. B) No, because she was not harmed physically.

C. C) Yes, because she was in the zone of danger.

D. D) No, because she did not have a close relationship with the injured person.

Explanation: She can recover for emotional distress because her physical symptoms were a direct consequence of witnessing her husband’s injury, thereby satisfying the nexus required for NIED claims.

2. A college professor conducts a controversial public lecture, and students who oppose his views begin to harass him with intense verbal abuse, leading to sleepless nights and anxiety. Is the professor likely to succeed in an IIED claim?

A. A) Yes, because the conduct was outrageous.

B. B) No, because the professor should expect criticism.(Correct)

C. C) Yes, because he suffered severe emotional distress.

D. D) No, because he is a public figure.

Explanation: While the professor experienced distress, the criticism and verbal abuse likely fall within the bounds of acceptable discourse, thus failing the outrageous conduct requirement.

3. A mother witnesses her child being hit by a car due to a driver's negligence. She had been standing nearby but suffers no physical injuries. Can she claim emotional distress?

A. A) Yes, if she can demonstrate serious emotional distress.(Correct)

B. B) No, because she was not physically harmed.

C. C) Yes, but only if she suffered PTSD.

D. D) No, because she cannot prove negligence.

Explanation: A mother can potentially recover for emotional distress if she can demonstrate that she suffered serious emotional harm from witnessing the accident, satisfying the criteria for NIED.

4. A store owner decides to confront a loud customer about their behavior and starts yelling insults. The customer later claims they suffered severe anxiety for weeks. What is the likely outcome of an IIED claim in this scenario?

A. A) The claim will succeed due to the insults.

B. B) The claim will fail because insults are not outrageous.(Correct)

C. C) The claim will succeed if the customer provides evidence of long-term distress.

D. D) The claim will fail because the customer did not seek therapy.

Explanation: Insults, even if harsh, do not usually meet the 'extreme and outrageous' threshold needed for IIED claims.

5. During a heated argument, a man tells his neighbor that his dog is going to die because he is fat, knowing the neighbor has a deep emotional attachment to the dog. The dog later dies of natural causes. Can the neighbor pursue an IIED claim?

A. A) Yes, as it was extreme and outrageous.

B. B) No, because the statement was not directed at causing emotional harm.(Correct)

C. C) Yes, if he proves he suffered severe emotional distress.

D. D) No, because it was not based on a threat.

Explanation: The man's comments, while insensitive, are unlikely to be deemed extreme and outrageous enough to support an IIED claim.

Test-Taking Tips
  • Always identify the standard of conduct required for IIED versus NIED.
  • Pay close attention to the 'zone of danger' concept for NIED claims.
  • Look for evidence of severe emotional distress, not just mild discomfort.
  • Consider the context of the defendant's actions when assessing outrageousness.
  • Practice with hypotheticals to clarify understanding of emotional distress elements.

Master MBE Topics with Briefly

Get AI-powered study tools, practice questions, and comprehensive legal resources.