Maryland
How Berg v. Wiley applies in Maryland: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Other.
In Maryland, the principles from Berg v. Wiley regarding tort and intentional infliction of emotional distress are applied with similar benchmarks, emphasizing the need for conduct that is extreme and outrageous. Maryland courts, like those in Berg, require a careful balancing of free speech rights against the necessity of protecting individuals from harmful actions.
The specific rule as applied in Maryland is that for a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, the conduct must be outrageous and transcend all bounds of decency tolerated by society.
The court established that emotional distress claims require proof of conduct that is extreme and outrageous.
In this case, it was ruled that distress must be severe and that mere insults or bad language are insufficient for such claims.
This case articulated that liability for emotional distress can arise only when the defendant’s conduct is so outrageous that it causes severe emotional distress to the plaintiff.
Maryland's approach aligns with the federal standard, focusing on extreme and outrageous conduct; however, Maryland courts place a slightly greater emphasis on the severity of emotional distress and its impact on the plaintiff. Federal courts may be more tolerant of speech-related defenses compared to state-level interpretations.
Issues related to intentional infliction of emotional distress are commonly tested in the Maryland bar exam, particularly regarding the thresholds of extreme and outrageous conduct.