Maryland
How Cohen v. City of New York applies in Maryland: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Torts.
Maryland recognizes the principle of emotional distress claims following the established standards set forth in Cohen v. City of New York. The state requires a showing of severe emotional distress, particularly under circumstances that encompass negligence or intentional infliction of emotional distress.
In Maryland, a plaintiff may recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress by demonstrating that the defendant's conduct was outrageous and extreme, causing severe emotional distress.
The court held that the evidence of emotional distress must show substantial harm, aligning with the standards of intentional infliction as established in prior case law.
The court ruled that a plaintiff can recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress if they demonstrate a close relationship to the injured party and were present at the scene of the incident.
The court found that a plaintiff must prove severe emotional distress as a result of the defendant's conduct, fulfilling the requirements for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Maryland mirrors the federal standard by requiring plaintiffs to show extreme and outrageous conduct along with severe emotional distress. The approach underscores the necessity for specific elements to be present for a successful claim, thus providing a general congruence in the application of tort principles.
Understanding the emotional distress torts' requirements under Maryland law is crucial for the Maryland bar exam, particularly in distinguishing between negligent and intentional claims.