The Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress extreme and outrageous conduct Flashcards
Wilkinson v. Downton
i. Facts
1) D presented to the P as a practical joke that her husband had been smashed up in accident and that both of his legs were broken. The D statements effected a violent shock to the wifes nervous system such that vomiting and permanent physical consequences resulted.
ii. Issues
1) Can D be considered to have intended P wifes injuries and therefore liable for P’s injuries even though he neither physically touched her or conducted himself in a way that the women would apprehend an immediate battery.
iii. Holding
1) The D willfully performed an act calculated to cause physical harm and as such it is appropriate to consider his act intentional.
iv. Notes
1) Modern Torn but an old case, this is the beginning of this law
2) Major difference between this case and intro cases is intent.
3) Parasitic damages
compensatory damages added onto a minor tort to get more money.
Bouillon v. Laclede Gaslight C
i. Facts
1) D agent tried to force way into P door (P was at risk for miscarriage) to read a meter that didn’t actually exist. He had nasty exchanges with the nurse through the door, through which cold air entered, P suffered from the chills that night and miscarried the baby the next morning
ii. Issue
1) Is D liable for P’s injuries even though they did not directy result from his assualt of the nurse
iii. Holding
1) D is liable for trespass and for damages that Result (naturally, necessarily, directly, and proximately)
a) P injuries arouse out of the D’s trespass
a) Parasitic damages
iv. Notes
1) If he hadn’t entered the apartment, no trespess and therefore no parasitic damages
Actor did not know the Pregnant women was in bed in the other room, this makes the case a little fuzzy.
SS 2- 46
1) 1. Actor of extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress is subject to liability for such emotional distress, AND, if bodily harm results, for that bodily harm.
a) LIABLE FOR BOTH EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND BODILY HARM THAT RESULTS FROM THE DISTRESS
2) Where such conduct is directed at a third person, the actor is subject to liability if he intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress
a) To a member of such person’s immediate family who is present, whether or not such distress results in bodily harm, OR
a) LIABLE FOR EMOTIONAL DISTRESS REGARDLESS OF WHETHER BODILY HARM RESULTS
b) To any other person who is present at the time, if such distress results in bodily harm.
a) ONLY IF BODILY HARM RESULTS
i. Notes
1) Liability been found only where conduct has been so outrageous and so extreme in degree to go beyond all possible bounds of decency is regarded at atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community
The actors knowledge that the other is peculiarly susceptible is a factor in this decision
State Rubbish Collectors Association v Siliznoff
i. Facts
1) P suing D for not honoring agreements made at a meeting in which P threatened to beat up the D, destroy his property, and put him out of business, if the D didn’t give the P some of his profit
2) D Filed a cross complaint asking for general and exemplary damages because of P’s assault
ii. Holding
1) Even though not a technical assault, P is liable for intentionally subjecting D to mental suffering incident to serious threats to his well being
iii. Notes
Analyzed under CA law not general Tort Theory
George v. Jordan Marsh Co.
i. P alleges the D’s bill collectors in an attempt to collect her sons debt placed badgering phone calls threatened legal and credit action, the P suffered a heart attack as a result from all the calls. The D’s actions persisted and P suffered a Second heart attack
ii. Holding
1) The Court upheld the P’s CoA under SS 46
iii. Notes
1) Key to case is defending knew the P had a prior heart attack but continued the harassing behavior
Bill collectors are in a more vulnerable position
Rockhill v. Pollard
i. Facts
1) Ps are all injured in a car accident, motorists all went to the D a doctor. The d did not examine the women and performed only precursory exam of the babies injures then ordered the women to wait outside in the cold rain until the husband arrived, the baby was later brought to a hospital where stat performed surgery to repair a skull fracture.
ii. Holding
1) D conduct was “outrageous in the extreme” D willfully and recklessly dishonored duty to patients
iii. Notes
1) Docs behavior was bad, because he chose to help at all
He had the legal right to refuse to help, but not after he started treatment, once that took place his legal duty was to help them, which he then refused and made them stand in the rain
Estate of Trentadue v. United States
i. Facts
1) State was responsible to return the deceased body back to his father after he died in prison. It failed to do so in a proper manner
ii. Holding
1) The states overall treatment of the family amounted to emotional distress
a) Not disclosing how he died
b) Obstinance in performing an autopsy
And its failure to inform the family of the body’s battered condition upon retrieval.
h. Patterson v. McLean Credit Union
i. Facts
1) P alleges supervisor engaged in racially motivated harassment (staring at the P, assigning too many tasks, other jobs not assigned to whites, Blacks work slower than whites statement)
ii. Holding
1) Suit is rejected for falling short of evidence required for such a suit under NC law to allow such an action
iii. Notes
Does the law establish a reasonable women standard?
Hustler Magazine v Falwell
i. Facts
1) Hustler printed and editorial of Falwell’s supposed first sexual encounter (with his mother in an outhouse as part of a drunken escapade)
ii. Holding
1) Magazine has a privelaged under the 1st amendment to publish political satire
a) To rule otherwise would render political cartoonists subject to damages even if there was no evidence of injury due to defamation
iii. Notes
1) Would hustler have a weaker or stronger argument if it printed the same thing about me?
a) Weaker because I am not a political figure
It is part of the purpose of cartoonists to infuse political aspects and this is what Rehnquist feels.
Snyder v. Phelps
i. Westborough Baptist church pickets a fallen soldiers funeral, their signs said outrageous things. The soldiers father did not see the signs at the time, but later saw them and out of extreme emotional distress, he sued them
ii. Holding
The supreme court held that outrageous is a highly malleable standard with an inherent subjectiveness about it which would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors tastes or views, overturned.
