1 / 17

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

In the

stevie
Download Presentation

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Filling the gap Respecting emotional injury

    2. In the “early” days What if Flynn had never touched Fischer’s plate? battery? No assault? Probably not false imprisonment? No any liability? No cts needed at least a borderline case of an est’d tort.

    3. Why were courts reluctant to recognize an action for “pure” emotional injury? 1. 2. 3. Trivial [not required by justice or deterrence?] Feigned [unadmin so unfair] Floodgates [admin] p. 768 (prosser) not measureable? Really? See P & S! NB: PRECEDENT? ASSAULT but considered an anomally and limited to immediate threat of wrongful CONTACT.Trivial [not required by justice or deterrence?] Feigned [unadmin so unfair] Floodgates [admin] p. 768 (prosser) not measureable? Really? See P & S! NB: PRECEDENT? ASSAULT but considered an anomally and limited to immediate threat of wrongful CONTACT.

    4. Why were courts reluctant to recognize an action for “pure” emotional injury? 1. Trivial (where draw the line?) 2. Floodgates 3. Easily feigned NB: PRECEDENT? ASSAULT but considered an anomally[p.773] and limited to immediate threat of wrongful CONTACT. NB: PRECEDENT? ASSAULT but considered an anomally[p.773] and limited to immediate threat of wrongful CONTACT.

    5. The law in transition What options were available to courts that felt that the law unfairly denied recovery to people who were intentionally harmed? (see facts on p. 768, Wilkinson) wait for legislation stretch the old torts (penny on bed = o.c.) recognize a new tort. Stretching usually precedes recognition

    6. State Rubbish Collectors Assn v. Siliznoff (Cal. 1952) Facts Trial court? Issue on appeal? Held on appeal? 771 trial jury verdict for S on counterclaim to P’s contract claim t.j. gave remittitur and S agreed. Rubbish appealed. Issue: not imminent enough to be an assault? held: affirmed regardless of whether a “technical” assault. 773 iied=c/a in Calif if…….771 trial jury verdict for S on counterclaim to P’s contract claim t.j. gave remittitur and S agreed. Rubbish appealed. Issue: not imminent enough to be an assault? held: affirmed regardless of whether a “technical” assault. 773 iied=c/a in Calif if…….

    7. Elements of new c/a in Cal? 1. Intent 2. Serious threats to physical well-being.\ 3. Severe fright

    8. Take a look at the new c/a. How different from assault? How is the right to recover from intentional infliction of emotional distress (“iied”) limited?? Any dictum suggesting that physical threats are not essential?

    9. Rationales? 1. 2. 3.

    10. Rationales? 1. Already the principal injury in many recognized causes of action 2. Fraud & floodgates prevented by requirement that action be outrageous 3. Administrative difficulties are not reason to deny recovery.

    11. What about fear of faking emo. Distress? “outrageousness” is as good a barometer as physical injury note: some states still require physical SYMPTOMS, but not physical contact. Floodgates? Ditto. Convincing? Triviality? Rejected precedent? Invasion of privacy; negl. Emo distress, central role in other torts like defamation, false imprisonment, etc.

    12. Next class: How far will the law go? Only if fear serious physical injury? Only if extreme and outrageous behavior? Only if physical symptoms result? All intentional infliction of emotional distress? How far should it go?

    13. Questions to consider When does conduct go beyond merely obnoxious into “outrageous”? Whose viewpoint do we use to decide? Reasonable person? Reasonable man? Woman? Black?

    14. Stop here?

    15. Restatement Elements? p. 770 1. 2. 3.

    16. Restatement Elements? p. 770 1. Intent or recklessness 2. Extreme & outrageous conduct 3. Causes severe emotional distress. Note: damages are needed, but not physical injury.

    17. Compare case and RS 1. Intent? 2. Conduct? 3. Injury?

    18. Samms v. Eccles (Utah. 1961), p. 778 Facts

More Related