• Video Transcript - What Is ‘Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress’ under Tort Law?

  Video Transcript - What Is ‘Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress’ under Tort Law?

  "0:00 What is negligent infliction of
  0:02 emotional distress under tort law?
  0:04 Negligent infliction of emotional
  0:06 distress is also known as parasitic
  0:09 damages. There are many ways in which it
  0:12 can arise. But generally, in California,
  0:16 one can recover for negligent infliction
  0:18 of emotional distress in different types
  0:22 of fact patterns, including a funeral
  0:24 home who wrongfully disposes of a body,
  0:26 or does something to a body of a family
  0:29 member that it shouldn’t have done, or
  0:31 buries the wrong body, or incinerates a
  0:34 body they weren’t supposed to incinerate.
  0:35 Or it could be caused in a situation
  0:39 where a parent or family member sees one
  0:43 of their children being hurt by the
  0:48 negligence of another, or perceives that
  0:50 injury not necessarily seeing it. So
  0:54 necessarily, under this theory, a blind
  0:57 person can recover a for negligent
  1:00 infliction of emotional distress caused
  1:02 by a tort feasor to one of their loved
  1:04 ones
  1:04 if that blind person perceived the
  1:07 injury causing event while it was
  1:10 occurring, it’s a sort of negligent
  1:12 damage that you can tack on to other
  1:15 negligence claims that you might have
  1:17 called parasitic damages." [music]"

Under tort law, any outrageous or extreme conduct to other people that causes severe emotional distress to the victim can lead to an IIED claim. If a reasonable person would have felt the offensive conduct rose to such a high level in a civilized community, the mental pain suffered is enough to ensure you can sue over such conduct.

Although to level of such claims are challenging, the victim may pursue damages for the emotional distress, but the facts will be scrutinized and questioned by the defense and the justice system. The courts are more likely to award compensatory damages if the victim suffers from emotional distress and a physical injury.

Emotional distress cases are also challenging for the courts to decide since extreme and outrageous conduct or severe emotional distress are both subjective. Previously the courts required that the plaintiff’s emotional distress manifest into a physical injury, but modern views on IIED claims do not require physical injury. If you suffered emotional distress, the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim might be valid if you prove the elements of the claim.

Effects of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress on the Victim

IIED victims can develop mental health problems, such as depression, anxiety, and others, affecting their personal and social lives over a long period. They may socially withdraw from their family members and friends, further deepening their mental problems.

In severe cases, the emotional distress can compound in the long run, leading to serious consequences, such as self-harm, post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse, physical symptoms, and even suicide.

Types of Incidents That Lead to Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Claims

Severe emotional harm can arise from several situations, including the following:

• Sexual harassment
• Racial, gender, and sexual orientation harassment
• Racism
• Hate crimes
• Employment law violations.

A hostile work environment can create grounds for employees to sue their employers for IIED. However, pursuing IIED claims is challenging, so IIED victims need to contact experienced personal injury attorneys to know their legal options.

Elements of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

There are three critical elements of the IIED claim that the plaintiff must prove, and these include:

1. The defendant carried out extreme and outrageous conduct
2. The defendant’s conduct was intentional or reckless
3. The plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress or emotional injury
4. The plaintiff’s severe emotional distress is due to the defendant’s extreme and outrageous conduct.

If the plaintiff can prove the abovementioned elements, the court will hold the defendant liable for the damages arising from their actions. The damages will include severe emotional distress and, in some cases, may also include bodily harm arising from the emotional distress.

For example, suppose the plaintiff is a pregnant woman who suffers a miscarriage due to the defendant’s conduct. In that case, the court will allow damages for the emotional distress and the miscarriage if the plaintiff can prove the elements successfully.

In some cases, a person may be able to bring a civil action for witnessing extreme or outrageous conduct carried out on their family member. However, a person who suffers severe emotional distress from verbal abuse or threats may not have a valid IIED claim.

Proving the Elements of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Although extreme and outrageous conduct may appear similar, there is a clear distinction. For example, infidelity may be outrageous but not extreme, and the defendant’s conduct must be both to have a valid IIED claim.

In simple words, extreme and outrageous conduct is beyond the boundaries of human decency, and it is so atrocious that one may find it intolerable in a civilized society.

Proving Extreme and Outrageous Conduct

The concept of extreme and outrageous conduct makes it challenging to prove since there is no test or standard to refer to. The court will also have to consider the plaintiff’s special needs or vulnerabilities, which may affect the standard.

In Wilkinson v. Downton, the regular customer defendant played a prank on the plaintiff, the pub owner’s wife, when her husband was away for the day. The defendant told the plaintiff that her husband lost both legs in a terrible accident, and in response, she had a nervous shock leading to weeks of suffering, requiring medical attention.

According to the judge, the defendant carried out an act willfully to cause harm to the plaintiff and ruled in favor of the plaintiff, awarding her $100.

Proving the Intent to Harm

The plaintiff must also prove that the defendant intended to cause an immediate risk of harm to the plaintiff, meaning that the defendant knew the plaintiff would suffer harm upon their actions. Mere insults won’t fly in, causing emotional distress. Also, it is not sufficient to prove that the actor intended to carry out an outrageous act. Still, the plaintiff must also prove that the defendant intended to hurt the victim using these outrageous acts as the impetus.

In Jane Doe 1 v. Roman Catholic Diocese, sexual abuse victims brought a civil action against the Catholic Diocese, claiming that it brought them emotional distress, especially after not limiting the alleged priest’s contact with minors after learning that he sexually abused them. Here, the defendant intentionally let a third person under their control engage in wrongful conduct against kids.

There you have a valid claim based on vicarious liability that does constitute extreme and outrageous conduct outside all possible bounds of decency. And it is also a matter of public concern that children were being groomed and raped by adults engaged in the form of false imprisonment, rape, and other bad acts.

The court ruled in favor of the defendant, as although the conduct was reckless, they did not mean to cause harm to the plaintiffs. The third element of an IIED claim is to show that the plaintiff suffered severe emotional injuries. In the case of Harris v. Jones, an employee sued their employer for making fun of his disability for several years.

However, the court ruled in favor of the defendant, stating that the plaintiff’s feeling of digging a hole and hiding in it was not a severe psychological injury. Some jurisdictions require the plaintiff to provide expert scientific or medical proof of the defendant’s action causing them extreme emotional distress.

However, many courts do not require medical testimonies and allow victims to bring testimonies from their family members, friends, or even their own.

Statute of Limitations for Severe Emotional Distress Claim

The statute of limitations for intentional infliction of emotional distress claims in California is two years, starting from the date the victim suffers severe emotional distress. However, if the injured victim fails to bring an emotional distress claim within two years, they lose their right to recover compensation.

Is IIED Different from Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress?

Some jurisdictions allow injured victims to recover damages for reckless disregard or the negligent infliction of emotional distress. In these cases, the court determines whether the defendant breached their duty of care toward the plaintiff, causing them emotional harm.

Since emotional harm is subjective, a few jurisdictions require physical symptoms to follow emotional distress to make recoveries. However, most permit recovery without physical symptoms.

Schedule a Free Consultation To Understand Tort Law and IIED Better

We hope this ended your journey of seeking legal help and understanding your legal rights under the common law and modern view of IIED claims. If you suffered emotional distress due to another’s intentional conduct, contact us at (833) LETS-SUE for a free consultation to learn more about your legal options.

• Accordion Index - Videos
  1. What is ‘Trespass to Land’ Under Tort Law?
  2. What is ‘Injunctive Relief’ Under Tort Law?
  3. What are ‘Intentional Torts to Property’?
  4. What is ‘Self Defense’ Under Tort Law?
  5. What is ‘Necessity’ Under Tort Law?
  6. What is ‘Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress’ Under Tort Law?
  7. What is ‘False Imprisonment’ Under Tort Law?
  8. What is ‘Assault’ Under English Common law?
  9. What is ‘Battery’ Under English Common Law?
  10. What are Common Law Intentional Torts?
  11. What is an ‘Intentional tort’?
  12. What is a ‘Tortfeasor’? 
  13. What is a Tort Liability?