Emotional Distress Case Study

Yandrich v. Radic, plaintiff was not successful in his claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff’s father committed suicide allegedly due to his depression from another son being killed by a car. 495 A.2d 460, 246 (Pa. 1981). The Court found that the father was not a witness because he was not in the immediate vicinity of the accident, and thus could not find for the plaintiff in this case. The differences between Yandrich and Ms. Nordlund’s claim outweigh their legal similarities, as the father in Yandrich did not see the scene of the accident like Ms. Nordlund did. Ms. Nordlund’s poor vision is a weakness in her claim, but having heard and seen the accident, (despite her blurry vision), may be strong enough to overcome

Intentional infliction of emotional distress - the Court states that because Texas law places a duty on Briles and McCaw, the Plaintiff 's negligence claim will fill any gaps.

. The husband of the plaintiff file a petition to the court that his wife[plaintiff] is mentally ill and needs to have a court order directing the admission of her to the mental health hospital. The petition initiated by plaintiff’s husband is the order of the Wayne County probate court, and it is also appropriately certified by Doctors Wolodzko, who after appearing in her house and introducing himself as a doctor , and have a conversation with her in person that day and another day in telephone, determine that she is suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and Smyk. The court gave the order and the Plaintiff was taken by ambulance from her home to a private psychiatric

6. Holding: As stated in the case: “one who, without a privilege to do so, by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally causes severe emotional distress to another, with bodily harm resulting from such distress, is subject to liability for such emotional distress and bodily harm even though he has committed no heretofore recognized common law tort.”

2. On or about April 5, 2013, Brad caused Richard to be unlawfully confined in a bound area, causing great physical and emotional suffering on the part of Richard.

Plaintiff further asserts that the Defendant breached its duty of care to her by: (1) “failing to fix a hazardous condition within a reasonable time;” (2) “failing to adequately warn plaintiff of a hazardous condition;” and (3) “otherwise failing to exercise reasonable and due care under the circumstances.” The Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages in the amount of two hundred thousand dollars, plus interest and costs.

2. The outcome of this issue is governed by Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 (1965) Outrageous Conduct Causing Severe Emotional Distress. The elements of this cause of action are (1) the wrongdoer's conduct was intentional or reckless, that is, he intended his behavior when he knew or should have known that emotional distress would likely result; (2) the conduct was outrageous, that is, as to go beyond all bounds of decency, and to be regarded as odious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community; (3) the conduct caused the emotional distress; and (4) the emotional distress was severe.

In her complaint, the Parents allege that the Defendants are liable to her on a theory of Intentional Inflection of Emotional Distress (“IIED”). “IIED claims are ‘rarely viable in a case brought under Maryland law.’” Takacs v. Fiore, 473 F. Supp. 2d 647, 652 (D. Md. 2007) (quoting Robinson v. Cutchin, 140 F. Supp. 2d 488, 494 (D. Md. 2001)). In order for an IIED allegation to survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must allege: “(1) The conduct must be intentional or reckless; (2) The conduct must be extreme and outrageous; (3) There must be a causal connection between the wrongful conduct and the emotional distress; [and] (4) The emotional distress must be severe.” Lasater v. Guttman, 194 Md. App. 431, 448 (2010).

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. This is exactly what happened din this case. Steve Steel not only knocked the phone out of Prudence’s hand but also broke down the door and threatened Prudence with force and made her scared for her life. I do believe that negligence is a part of this case. A person who engages in activities that pose an unreasonable risk toward others and their property that actually results in harm, breaches their duty of reasonable care. Steve Steel did not show a proper care of duty with Prudence. I think that Steve Steel should also be responsible for all of the physical and mental damages since he did not show reasonable care. I think the tort liability in this case would be assault and battery. An assault involves three things that we see in this case. An assault occurs when an intentional, unlawful threat or "offer" to cause bodily injury to another by force; under circumstances which create in the other person a well-founded fear of imminent peril; where there exists the apparent present ability to carry out the act if not prevented. A battery is the willful or intentional touching of a person against that person’s will by another person, or by an object or

Physical abuse happen when is involved contact planned to cause bodily harm, feelings of intimidation.

Issue: Under Kentucky tort law, does intentional infliction of emotional distress occur when a person suffers severe insomnia and anxiety as a result of witnessing a friend¡¦s child being injured by a vehicle that is out of control due to being driven at a high rate

Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. (85)

Torts of negligence are breaches of duty that results to injury to another person to whom the duty breached is owed. Like all other torts, the requirements for this are duty, breach of duty by the defendant, causation and injury(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). However, this form of tort differs from intentional tort as regards the manner the duty is breached. In torts of negligence, duties are breached by negligence and not by intent. Negligence is conduct that falls below the standard of care established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). The standard measure of negligence is the universal reasonable person standard. The assumption in this case is that a reasonable

The student 's motion for summary judgment was granted by the court and dismissed Drakers claims against the students for defamation and libel per se. The students and their families then had to file another motion for summary judgment regarding Draker’s remaining claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil conspiracy, and negligence. Once this happened, Draker filed her third amended petition alleging the students only for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence and gross negligence as to the parents. Eric Goldman states, “the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was dismissed because under TX law the cause of action is a gap-filler, and there was no gap given that the defamation doctrine putatively governs these facts.” Along with her third amended petition, Draker filed a motion for continuance. This motion would give her more time to look into the facts of her remaining claims. This motion was denied by the trial court. Along with the denial of Drakers motion, the court granted the Schreibers ' and the Todds ' motion for summary judgment. Draker argues that the trial court made three mistakes. These mistakes, as listed in the case are (1) granting summary judgment in favor of the students on her claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress; (2) granting summary judgment in favor of the parents on her claims of negligence and gross negligence; and (3) denying her motion for continuance and

A 32 year old woman was admitted to the Trauma Intensive Care Unit following a motor vehicle accident; she had multiple injuries and fractures, with several complications which continued to develop over the first couple of weeks. The patient rapidly developed Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome, was on a ventilator, and was continuously sedated. Shortly after the patient's admission, her parents were contacted and remained vigilant at her bedside. The parents reported that the patient was one month away from having her divorce finalized. The patient's husband was reportedly physically and emotionally abusive to her