Top Law Schools

I'm confused in regards to when a bystander can recover for IIED. The rule I have: For that bystander to recover, he will either have to prove the elements for intentional infliction of emotional distress, or prove that he was present when the injury occurred, that he is a close relative of the injured person, and that the defendant knew both of these facts.

I'm confused about the first part about proving the elements of IIED. Does that just mean Defendant is doing something to cause IIED to victim, but also at the same time has the intent of causing to IIED to bystander? I can't even think anymore but like if it was a work environment, the boss kept slapping worker and other worker sees it everyday, which leaves them upset and causes IIED?

AJS30 wrote:I'm confused in regards to when a bystander can recover for IIED. The rule I have: For that bystander to recover, he will either have to prove the elements for intentional infliction of emotional distress, or prove that he was present when the injury occurred, that he is a close relative of the injured person, and that the defendant knew both of these facts.

I'm confused about the first part about proving the elements of IIED. Does that just mean Defendant is doing something to cause IIED to victim, but also at the same time has the intent of causing to IIED to bystander? I can't even think anymore but like if it was a work environment, the boss kept slapping worker and other worker sees it everyday, which leaves them upset and causes IIED?

You don't need intent for IIED-recklesness suffices-I would argue the D's extreme and outrageous conduct was reckless w respect to the bystander. I remember the lecturer saying it was ironic that it was the only intentional tort that had the word intent in it but recklessness was good enough to satisfy the mental state.

lmr wrote:

AJS30 wrote:I'm confused in regards to when a bystander can recover for IIED. The rule I have: For that bystander to recover, he will either have to prove the elements for intentional infliction of emotional distress, or prove that he was present when the injury occurred, that he is a close relative of the injured person, and that the defendant knew both of these facts.

I'm confused about the first part about proving the elements of IIED. Does that just mean Defendant is doing something to cause IIED to victim, but also at the same time has the intent of causing to IIED to bystander? I can't even think anymore but like if it was a work environment, the boss kept slapping worker and other worker sees it everyday, which leaves them upset and causes IIED?

You don't need intent for IIED-recklesness suffices-I would argue the D's extreme and outrageous conduct was reckless w respect to the bystander. I remember the lecturer saying it was ironic that it was the only intentional tort that had the word intent in it but recklessness was good enough to satisfy the mental state.

I'm just confused then why there is even the second party of the rule regarding a family member if anyone can just bring an IIED claim?

AJS30 wrote:I'm confused in regards to when a bystander can recover for IIED. The rule I have: For that bystander to recover, he will either have to prove the elements for intentional infliction of emotional distress, or prove that he was present when the injury occurred, that he is a close relative of the injured person, and that the defendant knew both of these facts.

I'm confused about the first part about proving the elements of IIED. Does that just mean Defendant is doing something to cause IIED to victim, but also at the same time has the intent of causing to IIED to bystander? I can't even think anymore but like if it was a work environment, the boss kept slapping worker and other worker sees it everyday, which leaves them upset and causes IIED?

I have some scribbling in my notes written next to a diagram that looks like the DNA model for a giraffe that indicates a non-relative bystander can recover under those elements of IIED if they manifest physical symptoms/injury of the distress (heart attack)....do you know anything about this?

ConsiderMeMilesDavis wrote:

AJS30 wrote:I'm confused in regards to when a bystander can recover for IIED. The rule I have: For that bystander to recover, he will either have to prove the elements for intentional infliction of emotional distress, or prove that he was present when the injury occurred, that he is a close relative of the injured person, and that the defendant knew both of these facts.

I'm confused about the first part about proving the elements of IIED. Does that just mean Defendant is doing something to cause IIED to victim, but also at the same time has the intent of causing to IIED to bystander? I can't even think anymore but like if it was a work environment, the boss kept slapping worker and other worker sees it everyday, which leaves them upset and causes IIED?

I have some scribbling in my notes written next to a diagram that looks like the DNA model for a giraffe that indicates a non-relative bystander can recover under those elements of IIED if they manifest physical symptoms/injury of the distress (heart attack)....do you know anything about this?

Lol

Um, I think that's NIED. That's when D's negligence causes emotional distress (less onerous than intent/reckless?) then the plaintiff needs to manifest physical symptoms or injuries unless the P and D are in a special relationship (like the D is a doctor and delivers disturbing incorrect news negligently and P suffers anxiety or D is a funeral home mishandling family member's remains)

AJS30 wrote:

lmr wrote:

AJS30 wrote:I'm confused in regards to when a bystander can recover for IIED. The rule I have: For that bystander to recover, he will either have to prove the elements for intentional infliction of emotional distress, or prove that he was present when the injury occurred, that he is a close relative of the injured person, and that the defendant knew both of these facts.

I'm confused about the first part about proving the elements of IIED. Does that just mean Defendant is doing something to cause IIED to victim, but also at the same time has the intent of causing to IIED to bystander? I can't even think anymore but like if it was a work environment, the boss kept slapping worker and other worker sees it everyday, which leaves them upset and causes IIED?

You don't need intent for IIED-recklesness suffices-I would argue the D's extreme and outrageous conduct was reckless w respect to the bystander. I remember the lecturer saying it was ironic that it was the only intentional tort that had the word intent in it but recklessness was good enough to satisfy the mental state.

I'm just confused then why there is even the second party of the rule regarding a family member if anyone can just bring an IIED claim?

Not necessarily true. Either the defendant is directly inflicting severe emotional distress on the plaintiff, OR the plaintiff is a close family member of the victim, is present, and the defendant knows the plaintiff is a family member of the victim and is present.

Thus, your hypo at the end of your original post wouldn't support a claim for IIED for the co-worker, since the co-worker isn't a relative of the victim.

From Themis Lecture handout:

IIED:

3. 3rd party liability (distresses member of victim's immediate family - with or without resulting bodily injury - or other bystander resulting in bodily injury)

Immediate family - No physical manifestation of harm required to recover. It is enough if the defendant knew they were present. However, if its just any other bystander the defendant must know that they are there AND the bystander must have a physical manifestation of physical injury (i.e. heart attack or something).

Just reviewed this earlier. For NIED critical pass says you need to be within the "zone of danger" of the defendant's negligent conduct or be an immediate family member + have a physical manifestation of the harm.

Law-So-Hard wrote:Just reviewed this earlier. For NIED critical pass says you need to be within the "zone of danger" of the defendant's negligent conduct or be an immediate family member + have a physical manifestation of the harm.

I believe there's a split among the states as to whether bystander NIED claims require physical manifestation.