Pennsylvania
How Brower v. Ackerley applies in Pennsylvania: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Torts.
In Pennsylvania, the principles from Brower v. Ackerley regarding intentional infliction of emotional distress are evaluated within the framework established by the state's tort law. Pennsylvania courts typically require the plaintiff to demonstrate extreme and outrageous conduct as well as a severe emotional injury.
Pennsylvania courts maintain that for a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress to be actionable, the conduct must be extreme and outrageous, beyond the bounds of decency accepted by society.
The court ruled that the plaintiff must show conduct that is egregiously negligent or intentional to establish a claim for emotional distress.
The court reaffirmed that mere insults or indignities do not suffice for an emotional distress claim; rather, the conduct must rise to the level of outrageousness.
The court held that a reasonable person must feel a severe emotional reaction in order for a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress to succeed.
While Pennsylvania's standard for intentional infliction of emotional distress is similar to the federal standard, it places a stronger emphasis on the conduct being 'outrageous.' The federal standard often incorporates broader interpretations that may include conduct deemed merely reckless.
Understanding the application of intentional infliction of emotional distress in Pennsylvania is crucial for the Multistate Bar Examination, as it frequently tests on the nuances of state tort law.