Successful intentional infliction of emotional distress cases

Overview

The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) occurs when one acts abominably or outrageously with intent to cause another to suffer severe emotional distress, such as issuing the threat of future harm.

Prima Facie Case

1. The defendant acts
2. The defendant's conduct is outrageous
3. The defendant acts for the purpose of causing the victim emotional distress so severe that it could be expected to adversely affect mental health
4. The defendant's conduct causes such distress

First Amendment Limits on IIED Liability 

Certain intentional actions which may meet the prima facie case for an IIED (particularly as related to the outrageous conduct components) may not qualify for tort liability as an IIED, depending on the person at whom the conduct is directed or who commits the action. 

Typically, a court will not assign IIED tort liability to a defendant who speaks harmfully about public figures. 

Further, as per Texas v. Johnson (1989), “[G]overnment may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” 

Possible Defenses 

If the plaintiff gives consent to the defendant to engage in the outrageous conduct, then courts will likely not consider the conduct to be outrageous, thus negating the prima facie claim. 

Further, context matters as well. If the conduct is done in a situation in which it may be deemed normal or appropriate, then the prima facie claim is likely negated. 

Jurisdictional Variety

Some jurisdictions will expand IIED liability by modifying the prima facie case. Rather than requiring that the defendant's action causes emotional distress in an intended plaintiff, some jurisdictions will allow that even if the defendant directs conduct at plaintiff A, but someone close to Plaintiff A (Plaintiff B) suffers severe emotional distress, then Plaintiff B is allowed to bring an IIED claim against the defendant.

Modern Trends for IIED Liability 

In Snyder v Phelps(2010), the Supreme Court signaled a move away from imposing IIED liability. The Court set aside the trial court's jury verdict that found IIED liability: "[Applying the IIED tort] would pose too great a danger that the jury would punish [the defendant] for its views on matters of public concern." 

For more on the impact of Snyder v. Phelps on IIED liability, see this Yale Law Journal note, this University of Missouri Law Review note, and this Northwestern University Law Review note.

The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress has four elements: (1) the defendant must act intentionally or recklessly; (2) the defendant's conduct must be extreme and outrageous; and (3) the conduct must be the cause (4) of severe emotional distress. Hyatt, 943 S.W.2d at 297. Although case law does not provide us with a precise definition of "extreme and outrageous," the test adopted by Missouri courts for actionable conduct is that the conduct must be "so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community." Restatement (Second) of Torts section 46 cmt. d (1965). The defendant's conduct must be more than malicious and intentional; and liability does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, or petty oppressions. Viehweg v. Vic Tanny Intern. of Missouri, Inc., 732 S.W.2d 212, 213 (Mo.App.1987). "It is for the court to determine, in the first instance, whether the defendant's conduct may reasonably be regarded as so extreme and outrageous as to permit recovery...." Restatement (Second) of Torts section 46 cmt. h (1965). The court must determine whether an average member of the community upon learning of the facts alleged by plaintiff would exclaim "outrageous!" Viehweg, 732 S.W.2d at 213.

[7] Applying the elements for intentional infliction of emotional distress to the allegations in plaintiff's petition, we find that she stated a cause of action against INROADS. INROADS' behavior, as described in plaintiff's petition, was not just mean-spirited or boorish; rather its conduct reflected a calculated plan to cause plaintiff emotional harm. The alleged motive behind INROADS' conduct was retaliation for plaintiff's exposing misrepresentations by her immediate supervisor which falsely enhanced the performance of INROADS' St. Louis operation. All of the acts attributed to INROADS, taken together, were so outrageous as to be utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Plaintiff's petition stated a cause of action against INROADS for the intentional infliction of emotional distress. [FN1]

FN1. Some Missouri courts have extrapolated the standard for the negligent infliction of emotional distress to intentional infliction of emotional distress cases and required under Bass v. Nooney Co., 646 S.W.2d 765, 772-773 (Mo. banc 1983) that the emotional distress be medically diagnosable and medically significant. Hyatt, 943 S.W.2d at 297; see also Young, 664 S.W.2d at 265. If the Bass test is applicable to intentional infliction of emotional distress cases, plaintiff satisfied that test by pleading in her petition that the emotional distress she suffered was medically diagnosable and significant and required her to seek medical treatment.

Polk v. INROADS/St. Louis, Inc., 951 S.W.2d 646, 648 (Mo.App. E.D. Jul 22, 1997)

What are some examples of intentional infliction of emotional distress?

What evidence do you need for emotional distress?

What must a plaintiff prove to win a case of intentional infliction of emotional distress?

How do you win a mental anguish case?