Top Law Schools

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

“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).]

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.

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.

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

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.