Intentional Infliction of emotional distress?

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
Extension_Cord
Posts: 592
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:15 pm

Intentional Infliction of emotional distress?

Postby Extension_Cord » Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:42 pm

Parties meet in a public park. D calls P a stinky whale. Unbeknowst to D that P is hypersensitive and stops eating and becomes anorexic. Can P bring suit against D for IIED? What if D knew of P's hypersensitivity? What if D2 and D3 join in and call P a stinky whale also knowing of Ps sensitivity, IIED? How are damages distributed if so?

lawnerd1
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Intentional Infliction of emotional distress?

Postby lawnerd1 » Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:47 pm

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
1. Intentional or reckless infliction by extreme or outrageous conduct of severe emotional or mental distress, even in the absence of physical harm
a. Elements
i. Intent or reckless infliction
1. Reckless = reckless disregard for whether P would suffer harm
ii. By extreme or outrageous conduct
iii. Results in severe emotional or mental distress
iv. Even in the absence of physical harm

Also, egg shell skull theory. I'd say that P has a COA. Not sure about damages - we didn't cover those.

User avatar
Extension_Cord
Posts: 592
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:15 pm

Re: Intentional Infliction of emotional distress?

Postby Extension_Cord » Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:48 pm

lawnerd1 wrote:Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
1. Intentional or reckless infliction by extreme or outrageous conduct of severe emotional or mental distress, even in the absence of physical harm
a. Elements
i. Intent or reckless infliction
1. Reckless = reckless disregard for whether P would suffer harm
ii. By extreme or outrageous conduct
iii. Results in severe emotional or mental distress
iv. Even in the absence of physical harm

Also, egg shell skull theory. I'd say that P has a COA. Not sure about damages - we didn't cover those.


Eggskull plaintiff doesn't apply only to negligence?

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3225
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: Intentional Infliction of emotional distress?

Postby ph14 » Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:59 pm

Extension_Cord wrote:
lawnerd1 wrote:Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
1. Intentional or reckless infliction by extreme or outrageous conduct of severe emotional or mental distress, even in the absence of physical harm
a. Elements
i. Intent or reckless infliction
1. Reckless = reckless disregard for whether P would suffer harm
ii. By extreme or outrageous conduct
iii. Results in severe emotional or mental distress
iv. Even in the absence of physical harm

Also, egg shell skull theory. I'd say that P has a COA. Not sure about damages - we didn't cover those.


Eggskull plaintiff doesn't apply only to negligence?


Nope, it's a generally accepted principle in torts and is in effect for both intentional torts and strict liability as well as negligence.

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3225
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: Intentional Infliction of emotional distress?

Postby ph14 » Thu Nov 24, 2011 9:03 pm

Extension_Cord wrote:Parties meet in a public park. D calls P a stinky whale. Unbeknowst to D that P is hypersensitive and stops eating and becomes anorexic. Can P bring suit against D for IIED? What if D knew of P's hypersensitivity? What if D2 and D3 join in and call P a stinky whale also knowing of Ps sensitivity, IIED? How are damages distributed if so?


We only touched on IIED very briefly, but I don't think so-- I got the impression that it must be VERY egregious behavior. Courts are reluctant to reward for purely emotional harm. So definitely not if they don't know about the sensitivity.

Not sure how knowing of the sensitivity would work. Wouldn't we still judge it by the objective standard? Eggshell plaintiff rule only comes in effect once a tort is established. On the other hand, I could see a good argument that if you know of the sensitivity and acted intentionally, you should still be liable.

User avatar
johansantana21
Posts: 855
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:11 pm

Re: Intentional Infliction of emotional distress?

Postby johansantana21 » Thu Nov 24, 2011 9:09 pm

ph14 wrote:
Extension_Cord wrote:
lawnerd1 wrote:Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
1. Intentional or reckless infliction by extreme or outrageous conduct of severe emotional or mental distress, even in the absence of physical harm
a. Elements
i. Intent or reckless infliction
1. Reckless = reckless disregard for whether P would suffer harm
ii. By extreme or outrageous conduct
iii. Results in severe emotional or mental distress
iv. Even in the absence of physical harm

Also, egg shell skull theory. I'd say that P has a COA. Not sure about damages - we didn't cover those.


Eggskull plaintiff doesn't apply only to negligence?


Nope, it's a generally accepted principle in torts and is in effect for both intentional torts and strict liability as well as negligence.


I thought eggshell plaintiff didn't apply in intentional torts except for consequential damages.

i.e. someone touches me on my shoulder to say hi, I'm an eggshell plaintiff with extreme sensitivity, I can't sue for offensive touching.

But if someone punches me in the face and I have some condition that exacerbates normal damage and I die, that's eggshell applied to consequential damages.

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3225
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: Intentional Infliction of emotional distress?

Postby ph14 » Thu Nov 24, 2011 9:12 pm

johansantana21 wrote:
ph14 wrote:
Extension_Cord wrote:
lawnerd1 wrote:Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
1. Intentional or reckless infliction by extreme or outrageous conduct of severe emotional or mental distress, even in the absence of physical harm
a. Elements
i. Intent or reckless infliction
1. Reckless = reckless disregard for whether P would suffer harm
ii. By extreme or outrageous conduct
iii. Results in severe emotional or mental distress
iv. Even in the absence of physical harm

Also, egg shell skull theory. I'd say that P has a COA. Not sure about damages - we didn't cover those.


Eggskull plaintiff doesn't apply only to negligence?


Nope, it's a generally accepted principle in torts and is in effect for both intentional torts and strict liability as well as negligence.


I thought eggshell plaintiff didn't apply in intentional torts except for consequential damages.

i.e. someone touches me on my shoulder to say hi, I'm an eggshell plaintiff with extreme sensitivity, I can't sue for offensive touching.

But if someone punches me in the face and I have some condition that exacerbates normal damage and I die, that's eggshell applied to consequential damages.


Eggshell plaintiff rule only comes into effect when a tort has been committed. So in the 1st hypo, since there was no tort establishes (since no harmful or offensive conduct according to the reasonable person standard), the eggshell plaintiff rule is not in effect.

However, in the 2nd example, you committed a tort, battery, so you "take the D as you find them" and are liable for any unforeseen consequences once liability is established.

But i'm not sure how that works when a person has a known sensitivity. If you would still use the reasonable person standard? I'd think so but i'm not quite sure. Can someone clarify?

User avatar
AlexanderSupertramp
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: Intentional Infliction of emotional distress?

Postby AlexanderSupertramp » Thu Nov 24, 2011 9:15 pm

The known sensitivity is where you make your case for E&O conduct. I personally think in that case, it's not E&O but it's one of those ones where you could say, "On the one hand..." thus maximizing your points.

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3225
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: Intentional Infliction of emotional distress?

Postby ph14 » Thu Nov 24, 2011 9:20 pm

AlexanderSupertramp wrote:The known sensitivity is where you make your case for E&O conduct. I personally think in that case, it's not E&O but it's one of those ones where you could say, "On the one hand..." thus maximizing your points.


E&O?

User avatar
Extension_Cord
Posts: 592
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:15 pm

Re: Intentional Infliction of emotional distress?

Postby Extension_Cord » Thu Nov 24, 2011 9:30 pm

ph14 wrote:
AlexanderSupertramp wrote:The known sensitivity is where you make your case for E&O conduct. I personally think in that case, it's not E&O but it's one of those ones where you could say, "On the one hand..." thus maximizing your points.


E&O?


extreme and outrageous.

If you are hypersensitive to being touched and I tap you on the shoulder w/o knowing of your sensitivity, I will not be liable for your hypersensitive injuries. Howerver, if I know you have a sensitivity to being tapped on the shoulder and I do it to you anyways, I committed a battery.

The presumption is that an ordinary reasonable person would allow some contact, but if I subjectively know of your sensitivities I acted with intent to harm.
Last edited by Extension_Cord on Thu Nov 24, 2011 9:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
johansantana21
Posts: 855
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:11 pm

Re: Intentional Infliction of emotional distress?

Postby johansantana21 » Thu Nov 24, 2011 9:32 pm

Extension_Cord wrote:
ph14 wrote:
AlexanderSupertramp wrote:The known sensitivity is where you make your case for E&O conduct. I personally think in that case, it's not E&O but it's one of those ones where you could say, "On the one hand..." thus maximizing your points.


E&O?


extreme and outrageous.

If I tap you on the shoulder w/o knowing of your sensitivity and you file a suit against me, your complaint will be dismissed because it was hypersensitive. Howerver, if I know you have a sensitivity to being tapped on the shoulder and I do it to you anyways, I committed a battery.

The presumption is that an ordinary reasonable person would allow some contact, but if I subjectively know of your sensitivities I acted with intent to harm.


What if I say you looking at me or ever making eye contact with me will be offensive...?

lawnerd1
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Intentional Infliction of emotional distress?

Postby lawnerd1 » Thu Nov 24, 2011 9:37 pm

Egg shell plaintiff probably only applies to negligence:

“Egg-shell” Plaintiff Personal Injury Rule

While foreseeability of consequences is generally required to find liability, courts make an exception and do not require that the type of personal injury suffered by a victim be foreseeable. [See, e.g., Keegan v. Minneapolis & St. Louis R.R. Co., 78 N.W. 965 (Minn. 1899).] The defendant is liable even if the victim suffers physical injury far more severe (e.g., heart attack) than the ordinary person would be anticipated to have suffered from the accident.

More controversial is whether psychological sensitivity should also be covered under the egg-shell plaintiff rule. Some courts have so held, such as when a minor automobile accident resulted in the plaintiff's suffering a severe psychological breakdown. [See Steinhauser v. Hertz Corp., 421 F.2d 1169 (2d Cir. 1970).]


IIED:
Intentional infliction of mental distress exists when the defendant, by extreme and outrageous conduct, intentionally or recklessly causes the victim severe mental distress. Most states no longer require that the victim suffer physical manifestations of the mental distress. [See, e.g., State Rubbish Collectors Ass'n v. Siliznoff, 240 P.2d 282 (Cal. 1952).]

The Restatement defines extreme and outrageous conduct as behavior which is “beyond all possible bounds of decency and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.” [Restatement § 46 cmt. d.] The vulnerability of the victim and the relationship of the defendant to the victim can be critical.

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3225
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: Intentional Infliction of emotional distress?

Postby ph14 » Thu Nov 24, 2011 9:39 pm

lawnerd1 wrote:Egg shell plaintiff probably only applies to negligence:

“Egg-shell” Plaintiff Personal Injury Rule

While foreseeability of consequences is generally required to find liability, courts make an exception and do not require that the type of personal injury suffered by a victim be foreseeable. [See, e.g., Keegan v. Minneapolis & St. Louis R.R. Co., 78 N.W. 965 (Minn. 1899).] The defendant is liable even if the victim suffers physical injury far more severe (e.g., heart attack) than the ordinary person would be anticipated to have suffered from the accident.

More controversial is whether psychological sensitivity should also be covered under the egg-shell plaintiff rule. Some courts have so held, such as when a minor automobile accident resulted in the plaintiff's suffering a severe psychological breakdown. [See Steinhauser v. Hertz Corp., 421 F.2d 1169 (2d Cir. 1970).]


IIED:
Intentional infliction of mental distress exists when the defendant, by extreme and outrageous conduct, intentionally or recklessly causes the victim severe mental distress. Most states no longer require that the victim suffer physical manifestations of the mental distress. [See, e.g., State Rubbish Collectors Ass'n v. Siliznoff, 240 P.2d 282 (Cal. 1952).]

The Restatement defines extreme and outrageous conduct as behavior which is “beyond all possible bounds of decency and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.” [Restatement § 46 cmt. d.] The vulnerability of the victim and the relationship of the defendant to the victim can be critical.


Eggshell plaintiff rule definitely is not limited to negligence.

RelativeEase
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 5:26 pm

Re: Intentional Infliction of emotional distress?

Postby RelativeEase » Thu Nov 24, 2011 9:56 pm

[/quote]

Eggskull plaintiff doesn't apply only to negligence?[/quote]

The way my professor explained it is IIED requires you to intend the actual injury(as opposed to say battery where you don't have to intend the harm, just the touching). Which makes knowledge of victims mental makeup highly relevant. If you don't know the P is highly sensitive than there is more likely a chance you didn't actually intend the harm.

User avatar
Extension_Cord
Posts: 592
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:15 pm

Re: Intentional Infliction of emotional distress?

Postby Extension_Cord » Thu Nov 24, 2011 9:58 pm

ph14 wrote:Eggshell plaintiff rule definitely is not limited to negligence.


Egg skull plaintiff has to do with foreseeability of injury. It basically means defendant is liable for unforeseeable injuries that that defendant caused by their forseeable negligent act. It eliminates the proximate cause of damages if the probability was forseeable when the actual damages weren't but the act was (from my understanding). Intentional torts aren't limited by proximate cause which is based off foreseeability. If one acts intentionally to batter someone but that person has weak bones they are already liable and foreseeability isn't relevant.

Its basically the same, with different principals.

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3225
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: Intentional Infliction of emotional distress?

Postby ph14 » Thu Nov 24, 2011 9:58 pm

RelativeEase wrote:The way my professor explained it is IIED requires you to intend the actual injury(as opposed to say battery where you don't have to intend the harm, just the touching). Which makes knowledge of victims mental makeup highly relevant. If you don't know the P is highly sensitive than there is more likely a chance you didn't actually intend the harm.


I think the courts are split over this, some require single intent (just touching), others require dual intent (touching which causes harm).

User avatar
Extension_Cord
Posts: 592
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:15 pm

Re: Intentional Infliction of emotional distress?

Postby Extension_Cord » Thu Nov 24, 2011 10:02 pm

ph14 wrote:
RelativeEase wrote:The way my professor explained it is IIED requires you to intend the actual injury(as opposed to say battery where you don't have to intend the harm, just the touching). Which makes knowledge of victims mental makeup highly relevant. If you don't know the P is highly sensitive than there is more likely a chance you didn't actually intend the harm.


I think the courts are split over this, some require single intent (just touching), others require dual intent (touching which causes harm).


I understood battery to have intended the harmful or offensive contact. If I don't intend my contact to be harmful or offensive and it would be even to a reasonable person, there is no battery.

Just simply intending to touch someone that is offensive isn't battery unless it was intended by the actor to be offensive. While mistake isnt a defense to intent, it is to the actual touching.
Last edited by Extension_Cord on Thu Nov 24, 2011 10:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3225
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: Intentional Infliction of emotional distress?

Postby ph14 » Thu Nov 24, 2011 10:03 pm

Extension_Cord wrote:
ph14 wrote:Eggshell plaintiff rule definitely is not limited to negligence.


Egg skull plaintiff has to do with foreseeability of injury. It basically means defendant is liable for unforeseeable injuries that that defendant caused by their forseeable negligent act. It eliminates the proximate cause of damages if the probability was forseeable when the actual damages weren't but the act was (from my understanding). Intentional torts aren't limited by proximate cause which is based off foreseeability. If one acts intentionally to batter someone but that person has weak bones they are already liable and foreseeability isn't relevant.

Its basically the same, with different principals.


What? It is the same principle. You take the D as you find them.

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3225
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: Intentional Infliction of emotional distress?

Postby ph14 » Thu Nov 24, 2011 10:04 pm

Extension_Cord wrote:
ph14 wrote:
RelativeEase wrote:The way my professor explained it is IIED requires you to intend the actual injury(as opposed to say battery where you don't have to intend the harm, just the touching). Which makes knowledge of victims mental makeup highly relevant. If you don't know the P is highly sensitive than there is more likely a chance you didn't actually intend the harm.


I think the courts are split over this, some require single intent (just touching), others require dual intent (touching which causes harm).


I understood battery to have intended the harmful or offensive contact. If I don't intend my contact to be harmful or offensive and it would be even to a reasonable person, there is no battery.


Courts are split: See, e.g., http://www.bu.edu/lawlibrary/facultypub ... tThird.pdf at 1066.

Dual Intent or Single Intent? First, what intent is required for battery? Why, the “inten[t] to cause a harmful or offensive contact,” of course! But this usual way of characterizing the intent is fatally ambiguous. Must the defendant intend only to cause the contact? Or must she also intend that the contact be harmful or offensive? The courts are split on the issue: a substantial group follows the so-called dual-intent approach, requiring both an intent to contact and an intent either to harm or offend; another substantial group follows the single-intent approach, requiring only an intent to contact.

User avatar
Extension_Cord
Posts: 592
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:15 pm

Re: Intentional Infliction of emotional distress?

Postby Extension_Cord » Thu Nov 24, 2011 10:08 pm

ph14 wrote:
Extension_Cord wrote:
ph14 wrote:Eggshell plaintiff rule definitely is not limited to negligence.


Egg skull plaintiff has to do with foreseeability of injury. It basically means defendant is liable for unforeseeable injuries that that defendant caused by their forseeable negligent act. It eliminates the proximate cause of damages if the probability was forseeable when the actual damages weren't but the act was (from my understanding). Intentional torts aren't limited by proximate cause which is based off foreseeability. If one acts intentionally to batter someone but that person has weak bones they are already liable and foreseeability isn't relevant.

Its basically the same, with different principals.


What? It is the same principle. You take the D as you find them.


Its not called the Egg skull plaintiff rule in intentional torts, because in intentional torts the actor is liable for all injuries regardless of foreseeability. There is no need for the rule, except in negligence actions because proximate cause would ordinarily foreclose unforeseeable injuries. (I see the flaw though because palsgraf was about the foreseeable plaintiff not foreseeable damages... Now Im confused on why ESP is not in intentional torts, but it isnt even though the end results are the same).

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3225
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: Intentional Infliction of emotional distress?

Postby ph14 » Thu Nov 24, 2011 10:10 pm

Extension_Cord wrote:
ph14 wrote:
Extension_Cord wrote:
ph14 wrote:Eggshell plaintiff rule definitely is not limited to negligence.


Egg skull plaintiff has to do with foreseeability of injury. It basically means defendant is liable for unforeseeable injuries that that defendant caused by their forseeable negligent act. It eliminates the proximate cause of damages if the probability was forseeable when the actual damages weren't but the act was (from my understanding). Intentional torts aren't limited by proximate cause which is based off foreseeability. If one acts intentionally to batter someone but that person has weak bones they are already liable and foreseeability isn't relevant.

Its basically the same, with different principals.


What? It is the same principle. You take the D as you find them.


Its not called the Egg skull plaintiff rule in intentional torts, because in intentional torts the actor is liable for all injuries regardless of foreseeability. There is no need for the rule, except in negligence actions because proximate cause would ordinarily foreclose unforeseeable injuries. (I see the flaw though because palsgraf was about the foreseeable plaintiff not foreseeable damages... Now Im confused on why ESP is not in intentional torts, but it isnt even though the end results are the same).


See, e.g., http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/eggshell_skull_rule

Doctrine that makes a defendant liable for the plaintiff's unforeseeable and uncommon reactions to the defendant's negligent or intentional tort. If the defendant commits a tort against the plaintiff without a complete defense, the defendant becomes liable for any injury that is magnified by the plaintiff's peculiar characteristics.

User avatar
Extension_Cord
Posts: 592
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:15 pm

Re: Intentional Infliction of emotional distress?

Postby Extension_Cord » Thu Nov 24, 2011 10:13 pm

ph14 wrote:Doctrine that makes a defendant liable for the plaintiff's unforeseeable and uncommon reactions to the defendant's negligent or intentional tort. If the defendant commits a tort against the plaintiff without a complete defense, the defendant becomes liable for any injury that is magnified by the plaintiff's peculiar characteristics.


My Emanuels outline distinguishes the two. p. 166 (ESP) and p. 10 (Intentional tort liability for unforeseeable injuries).

Im looking at my class notes also, and I highlighted one section that states "Bartolone - exception to unforeseeable bar to recover under PC). I will read the note cases later tonight.

User avatar
Extension_Cord
Posts: 592
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:15 pm

Re: Intentional Infliction of emotional distress?

Postby Extension_Cord » Thu Nov 24, 2011 10:21 pm

My book states the ESP only speaks to the proximate cause. Proximate cause isn't a limitation in intentional torts as far I know.

RelativeEase
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 5:26 pm

Re: Intentional Infliction of emotional distress?

Postby RelativeEase » Thu Nov 24, 2011 10:22 pm

But you can commit a battery without even causing injury. You just have to intend the conduct not the result.

for IIED you don't just have to intend the conduct(extreme or outrageous) you have to intend the result(actual injury). If there is no injury there is no tort.

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3225
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: Intentional Infliction of emotional distress?

Postby ph14 » Thu Nov 24, 2011 10:25 pm

Extension_Cord wrote:My book states the ESP only speaks to the proximate cause. Proximate cause isn't a limitation in intentional torts as far I know.


I guess your approach seems to make sense, but it is kind of circular. You're saying that there isn't an "eggshell plaintif" rule for intentional torts because an intentional tortfeasor is already liable for all damages arising from the tort; but they are liable for all damages because of the eggshell plaintiff rule, whether that's what you want to call it or not.

All I know is that courts have used eggshell plaintiff in discussing intentional tort cases, so I think it is proper.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], deadthrone7 and 3 guests