Delaware
How Berger v. Shapiro applies in Delaware: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Torts.
Delaware law recognizes the principles set forth in Berger v. Shapiro, particularly in parsing liability and the standards for imposing emotional distress claims. The state's approach emphasizes a balance between protection for plaintiffs and imposing appropriate limits to avoid frivolous claims.
In Delaware, the ruling in Berger v. Shapiro is viewed within the scope of intentional infliction of emotional distress and often requires that conduct be not only outrageous but also that the distress is severe and genuine.
The court held that a party could not claim emotional distress based solely on negligence when no extreme and outrageous conduct was established.
In this case, the court reaffirmed the need for conduct to be extreme and outrageous, as required by the precedent of Berger v. Shapiro.
The court granted summary judgment where plaintiff could not demonstrate the outrageous character necessary for an emotional distress claim.
Delaware's approach parallels the federal standard set by the Restatement (Second) of Torts for emotional distress, requiring outrageously distressing conduct. However, Delaware emphasizes a stricter standard with added thresholds for severity in distress claims.
Understanding the application of Berger v. Shapiro is crucial for the Delaware bar exam, especially in torts related to emotional distress claims and defining the limits of actionable conduct.