Is Leo Liable For Assault Towards Ellen?

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.

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

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).

38. Which of the following describes when an employer is held vicariously liable for the torts of the “servant” or employee if the employee was acting within the scope of his or her employment?

In the district court trial, the jury sided with the plaintiff and ruled that the St. Louis Hockey Club was vicariously liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. The trial court agreed with the plaintiff’s argument that as per the doctrine of respondeat superior, the defendant was liable for their employee’s negligent actions that led to the plaintiff’s injuries. As part of their

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.

In Assault section 21 a it states, “he acts intending to cause harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person or an imminent apprehension of such contact,”. Section b states, “and the other is thereby put in such imminent

calls during work hours outside of a designated break or dinner time, these are to occur in an area not

Explain how respondeat superior and vicarious liability applies to employees of a health care facility. Include how these doctrines will apply not only to direct care givers but to office personnel and administration as well.

The boyfriend’s mother called her at work and told her the boyfriend had her car keys. Rodman told the mother to have the boyfriend call her at work. When he did, she informed him that she could not talk to him at her duty station, and he hung up on her. He called her back and left a number where he could be reached. She left the work area and went to the break room to call him. After returning to her duty station, Rodman got another telephone call from her boyfriend who told her to go downstairs to the lobby to meet him and pick up the keys. When she refused, he told her that if she did not come down he would come up to her department. Claimant left the department to confront her boyfriend, and, because her supervisor was at lunch in the hospital cafeteria, Rodman notified a co-worker, a registered nurse, that she was leaving. Rodman testified, “I didn’t want any kind of confrontation at the desk, so I went downstairs.” Before she left her desk, Rodman called the employer’s security guard and asked him to meet her in the lobby because she anticipated that a problem could develop. When Rodman got to the lobby, her boyfriend started yelling and forced her outside. In doing so, he tore her shirt. At this point the security guard arrived and observed them arguing. Rodman was in the passenger seat of her car. The security guard instructed the boyfriend to

In conclusion, under NC law, George is not entitled to compensation for intentional infliction of emotional

3, Dec. 6, 2017). Mr. Drake was stirred up, cheering, standing, shooting confetti and had an accompanying horn (Id.). A fan nearby asked Officer Shaffer to get the plaintiff to stop (Id.). The defendant informed the complaining fan and the plaintiff that he was on his day off, but again asked Mr. Drake to sit down and stop bothering everyone (Id.). The defendant states that he “was getting pretty ticked off” and turned around and confronted Officer Shaffer stating that “he was an off-duty cop and needed to back off (Id.).” Officer Sheffer asserted to Mr. Drake that he should not be so disrespectful (Shaffer Dep. 13, Dec. 7, 2017). After the plaintiff stood up and invaded the defendants space, he began yelling at him (Id.). Officer Shaffer prodded Mr. Drake with the foam finger and told him to sit down (Id.). Facts continued

City of Charlotte, 93 F.3d 1241, 1254 (4th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 520 U. S. 1116 (1997) (based on a comprehensive survey of circuit case law, the court concluded that "a plaintiff's testimony, standing alone, can support an award of compensatory damages for emotional distress"); Williams v. Trader Publishing Co., 218 F.3d 481, 486 (5th Cir. 2000). Emotional harm may manifest itself, for example, as sleeplessness, anxiety, self-esteem, stress, depression, marital strain, humiliation, emotional stress, excessive fatigue, or a nervous breakdown. Physical manifestations of emotional harm may consist of ulcers, gastrointestinal disorders, hair loss, or

Garcia was a married woman in need of special protection. It was from a broader doctrine by which equity protects the vulnerable parties in a relationship and ensures that in proper cases they have full information and, where necessary, independent advice before they volunteer to put at risk the major asset of their relationship for the primary advantage of those to whose pressure they may be specially vulnerable.

2. Can an employer unilaterally impose a grooming rule over the objections of its employees or their bargaining agent?