Maryland
How Farwell v. Keaton applies in Maryland: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Torts.
Maryland law recognizes the principles of liability for emotional distress as established in Farwell v. Keaton. The courts in Maryland apply the 'reasonable man' standard to determine if the actions were reckless and if the emotional distress was foreseeable.
In Maryland, a plaintiff can recover damages for emotional distress if they show that the defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous, and that the distress suffered was severe and directly tied to that conduct.
The Maryland Court of Appeals recognized the legitimacy of claims for emotional distress under specific circumstances associated with tortious conduct.
The court allowed recovery for severe emotional distress caused by the defendant's actions, referencing Farwell v. Keaton as a foundational case.
Acknowledged the principles of intentional infliction of emotional distress consistent with the standards set in Farwell v. Keaton.
In federal courts, the standard for emotional distress claims may vary slightly, with a heavier emphasis on the context of the conduct being outrageous. Maryland maintains a closer alignment with the established RESTATEMENT principles, focusing on the severity and the direct link to the defendant's conduct.
Farwell v. Keaton's principles related to emotional distress are likely to appear on the Maryland bar exam, particularly in questions pertaining to torts and conduct that results in severe emotional distress.