Torts · Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

1

Official Scope

17. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Claims of intentional infliction of emotion distress are limited to rare cases where (1) the defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous; (2) the defendant either intended to cause the plaintiff emotional distress or demonstrated reckless disregard for the probability of causing emotional distress; (3) the plaintiff actually suffered severe or extreme emotional distress; and (4) the defendant's conduct caused the distress. See RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 46 (1965); DAN B. DOBBS, ET AL., THE LAW OF TORTS § 385 (2d ed.).

Scope of tested knowledge

The elements of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress are (1) the defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous; (2) the defendant either intended to cause the plaintiff emotional distress or demonstrated reckless disregard for the probability of causing emotional distress; (3) the plaintiff actually suffered severe or extreme emotional distress; and (4) the defendant's conduct caused the distress.
Courts use a variety of phrases to describe conduct that is “extreme and outrageous.” One common formulation is conduct that is “outside all possible bounds of decency and is regarded as utterly intolerable in a civilized society.” Maduike v. Agency Rent-A-Car, 114 Nev. 1, 4, 953 P.2d 24, 26 (1998).
Test-takers do not have to recall this precise language, but should understand its tenor.
Targeting someone’s known weakness is relevant both to whether the action is extreme and outrageous and to the intent element.
As with negligence (concept 8), causation is typically established by showing that the defendant’s action was a “but for” cause of the plaintiff’s distress.
This intentional tort requires actual harm. Indeed, the plaintiff must suffer severe or extreme distress to recover.

2

Plain Language

Bottom line

IIED is a deliberately narrow tort limited to rare cases. It requires extreme and outrageous conduct, fault (intent or recklessness), and actual severe or extreme distress that the conduct caused.

IIED is a deliberately narrow tort. The examiner's own scope text calls it limited to "rare cases," and that framing is the whole game. Four elements must all be present.

The four elements

1The conduct is extreme and outrageous. The bar is very high: insults, indignities, rude language, and petty oppressions are not enough; the conduct must be outside all possible bounds of decency and utterly intolerable in a civilized society.
2The defendant either intended emotional distress or acted with reckless disregard for the probability of causing it. "Intentional" infliction can be satisfied by recklessness, a conscious disregard of the high probability that distress will follow.
3The plaintiff actually suffered severe or extreme emotional distress, not mere annoyance or transient upset. This is one of the few intentional torts that requires actual harm.
4The conduct caused that distress, using ordinary but-for causation borrowed from negligence.

One scope-specific wrinkle: if the defendant targets a known weakness of the plaintiff, that fact cuts two ways at once, making the conduct look more outrageous and helping establish the required intent.

Watch out

Two checkpoints kill most claims: the conduct bar (mere insults, threats, and rudeness do not clear it) and the harm bar (annoyance and hurt feelings are not severe distress).

3

Make it Stick

Memory hook

"outrageous, on purpose or reckless, severely, caused it."

Four beats, in order

1

Outrageous conduct, beyond all bounds of decency

2

On purpose or reckless about the probability of distress

3

Severe or extreme distress that actually happened

4

The conduct caused it (but-for)

Two checkpoints kill most claims: the conduct checkpoint (mere insults, threats, and rudeness do not clear the bar) and the harm checkpoint (annoyance and hurt feelings are not severe distress).

And remember the asymmetry: the fault box is easy to check because recklessness counts, but the conduct box and the harm box are hard.

Bonus cue: "known weakness" is a green light on both outrageousness and intent.

4

Rule in Action

The facts

Suppose a collection agent, trying to pressure a tenant over a disputed bill, calls her dozens of times a day for three straight weeks, shows up at her workplace to announce the debt to her coworkers, and repeatedly tells her he will make sure she is fired and left with nothing. The tenant develops a diagnosed anxiety disorder, cannot sleep, and stops eating normally.

1

Outrageous conduct?A sustained campaign of harassment and threats aimed at one person goes well beyond rude or insulting and can be found outside all bounds of decency, so element one is satisfiable.

2

Fault?The agent either wanted to cause distress or at a minimum consciously disregarded the high probability that this campaign would cause it, so recklessness alone carries element two.

3

Severe distress?A diagnosed anxiety disorder with sleep and eating disruption is severe or extreme, not mere annoyance, so element three is met.

4

Causation?The harassment was a but-for cause of the breakdown. All four elements line up, so the claim survives.

Now change one fact

If the agent had simply sent one rude email calling her irresponsible and she was briefly annoyed.

5

Does the claim survive?NoBoth the conduct bar and the harm bar fail, and the claim collapses no matter how unpleasant the email felt.

5

Common Distractors

Overstatement

An option treats insults, rude language, threats, or a single nasty remark as enough, or claims an absolute privilege (a creditor is 'always' allowed to be aggressive).

The conduct must be outside all possible bounds of decency. Insults and indignities, without more, are not extreme and outrageous, and there is no blanket privilege.

Misstated standard

An option lets the plaintiff recover on annoyance, embarrassment, or transient upset, or denies recovery only for lack of physical injury.

IIED requires actual harm that is severe or extreme emotional distress. Mere distress is not severe distress, and physical injury is not required.

Misstated standard

An option denies liability because the defendant did not specifically want to cause distress.

The fault element is met by intent OR by reckless disregard of the probability of causing distress.

Wrong-doctrine transplant

A bystander or unintended person recovers because the defendant's intent toward someone else 'transfers,' or a 'zone of danger' test is applied.

Transferred intent does not extend to IIED, and the zone-of-danger test is a negligence doctrine. The plaintiff must satisfy the elements, including fault, as to herself.

6

How It's Tested

When you see

The stem hands you a defendant behaving badly toward a plaintiff and an emotional-harm aftermath, then asks whether the plaintiff can recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Run the analysis

1

The instant you see that frame, run the two checkpoints first, because they decide most of these.

2

Checkpoint one: is the conduct truly extreme and outrageous, or is it just rude, insulting, or threatening?

3

If it is only rude, stop, the claim fails.

4

Checkpoint two: is the distress severe or extreme, or merely annoyance, embarrassment, or transient upset?

5

If it is merely upset, stop, the claim fails.

6

If both checkpoints clear, confirm fault (intent or recklessness) and but-for causation.

7

Watch two tells: a "known weakness" fact is a signal that outrageousness and intent are both in play, and a bystander or unintended-victim fact is bait for the transferred-intent trap, which does not apply to iied.

7

Practice

Question 1 of 5

A debt collector pursued a tenant over a bill she disputed. For three weeks he telephoned her several dozen times a day, came to her workplace to announce the unpaid debt loudly in front of her coworkers, and repeatedly told her he would see to it that she was fired and left penniless. The tenant developed a diagnosed anxiety condition, could no longer sleep, and lost a significant amount of weight. She sued the collector for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Is the tenant likely to prevail?

Question 2 of 5

During a busy dinner service, a restaurant manager grew impatient with a diner who was slow to order. In front of nearby tables he called the diner a clueless time-waster and told him to hurry up or leave. The diner felt embarrassed and irritated for the rest of the meal but suffered no lasting effects. He later sued the manager for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Is the diner likely to prevail?

Question 3 of 5

A radio host learned that a listener had a severe, well-publicized phobia of being trapped. As a stunt, and without caring how the listener would react, the host arranged to have the listener locked alone inside a dark, sealed sound booth for an hour while the studio broadcast her reaction. The host did not specifically want to harm her; he simply wanted entertaining audio. The listener suffered a prolonged panic episode and developed a lasting stress disorder. She sued the host for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Is the listener likely to prevail?

Question 4 of 5

A landlord, furious that a tenant had complained to the housing authority, taped a large sign to the tenant's door falsely announcing that the tenant was a thief, and left it up for a day before neighbors removed it. The tenant was angry and embarrassed for an afternoon but otherwise went about his week normally and suffered no significant or lasting emotional harm. He sued the landlord for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Is the tenant likely to prevail?

Question 5 of 5

Intending to terrify a store clerk, a customer leaned over the counter and screamed a graphic, sustained threat to hunt the clerk down, while slamming the counter. The clerk was severely traumatized and developed a lasting stress disorder. A second customer, a stranger standing a few feet away, happened to witness the outburst and was also severely shaken, developing her own diagnosed condition, though the angry customer never noticed her and had no reason to know she was there. The bystander sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Is the bystander likely to prevail?