Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

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.

Intentional Torts are defined as “voluntary acts that harm a protected interest” (McAdams, 2015, p. 279). The voluntary act must be found to be an intended act, done on purpose, even though the harm done by the act may not have been intended; however, the victim or plaintiff does not need to prove that the harm done was intended (p.279). In this particular case, was there an intentional act done by the airlines or pilot, which in turn caused injury to the plaintiff?

Can plaintiff Ron Arnett state a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) under Pennsylvania law given that Arnett was located twenty feet from the accident that injured Sarah Nolan, saw Ricky Landis running toward the pool and realized immediately after the impact what had happened, but viewed the impact while underwater; and though they share an emotional bond, Arnett and Nolan are not biologically or legally related?

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

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

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

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.

Two hours after George killed Lennie, George was at the bar with Curley and Slim to get a drink, and the three began talking about Lennie, making George start to think if he had done the right thing by shooting Lennie in the head. After the three left the bar, George walked out onto the street and saw Curley's wife walking down the street. George decided to shrug it off and told himself that it was all part of his imagination, and George returned to his house. Three years later, George had built the house by the lake that Lennie had wanted, and George had buried Lennie's body in the backyard. Later, George had decided to go to the bar to get a drink, when he got to the bar he saw Slim and Carley, and Curley's wife all talking with each other. When the group saw George, he was in awe "I thought that Lennie killed you..." he said to Curley's wife, Curley replied excitedly "Nope, i'm not sure how but she is alive!" George was still confused, then Slim said "Stop asking so many questions and come have a drink" George had then began thinking about how the only reason he killed Lennie was because Lennie went too far to save by killing Curley's wife. After that, George had began disconnecting himself with the rest of the group because he had become depressed after he had learned that Lennie wasn't a murderer. Just as George was thinking about how he shouldn't have killed Lennie, he heard a knock on his door, and he went to see who it was, Curley's wife was at the door with Slim, and both were looking sad. George had opened the door for them, and said "What happened?" Curley's wife looked back at him, and informed him that Curley had been murdered. George beckoned the two inside is house, and said "Come in, do either of you want anything to drink?" Curley's wife shook her head Slim walked her inside. The three sat down at a table in George's house "Tell me what happened" George said nervously, Curley's wife replied, "I was having an argument with Curley and he had gotten angry and stormed off, later, when i went looking for him, I found him in the ranch, with an axe wound in his head." Curley's wife started crying and Slim looked at George, "She came to me and told me the story, then asked

        An injunction may also be issued. This is to prevent the negligent acts from being performed again by the defendant

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.”

Appellant contends that the district court erred in convicting her under the malicious-punishment statue as well as in ruling that the statute does not require proof of bodily harm. Accordingly, if proof of bodily harm is not required for conviction of malicious punishment, the statute is unconstitutionally vague.

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

Conclusion: Thanks to the landmark case, Marrita Murphy and Daniel J. Leveille, Appellants v. Internal Revenue Service and United States of America, Appellees, there is now no misunderstanding that awards received for damages to personal and professional reputation and mental suffering are included in gross income and are therefore taxable under 26 U.S.C. § 104(a)(2). This determines that because Murray did not suffer personal physical injuries and since gross income as defined by Code Sec. 61 includes compensatory damages for nonphysical injuries, such as those awarded to Murray, his award is in fact taxable [2007-2 U.S.T.C. ¶50,531, (Jul. 3, 2007)].

The harm must be linked to the behavior of the defendant, a factor often hard to prove.

2. When George and Lennie were late for work, who did the boss punish? And why did he come to this decision?