Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) is a tort recognized in the common law of many jurisdictions, particularly in the United States. It allows a plaintiff to recover damages when a defendant’s intentional or reckless conduct is so extreme and outrageous that it causes severe emotional trauma to the plaintiff.
Legal Elements
To succeed on an IIED claim, a plaintiff typically must prove the following elements:
- Intentional or reckless conduct – The defendant acted with the purpose of causing emotional distress, or with reckless disregard of the high probability that such distress would result.
- Extreme and outrageous conduct – The conduct must exceed the bounds of decency tolerated by society; ordinary insults, annoyances, or everyday conflicts are insufficient.
- Causation – The defendant’s conduct was the direct cause of the plaintiff’s emotional distress.
- Severe emotional distress – The emotional distress suffered must be substantial, often requiring medical or psychological evidence (e.g., diagnosis of a disorder, hospitalization, or therapy).
Jurisdictional Variations
- United States: All states recognize the tort in some form, but the precise definition of “extreme and outrageous” and the required level of emotional injury can differ. Some states (e.g., California) require proof of severe, medically confirmed distress, while others are more permissive.
- United Kingdom: The tort of IIED does not exist under that name; similar claims may be brought under “infliction of emotional distress” within the broader category of negligence or as part of “intentional torts” such as assault.
- Canada: The concept is recognized, often framed as “intentional infliction of mental distress” and governed by provincial case law.
Historical Development
The modern articulation of IIED in U.S. law is traced to the 1969 California Supreme Court decision Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988). In that case, the United States Supreme Court held that public figures could recover for IIED only if the statements were made with actual malice and were false, emphasizing the need for constitutional protection of free speech. The decision refined the balance between free expression and the protection against severe emotional harm.
Earlier case law, such as Wilkinson v. Downton (UK, 1897), established the principle that intentional acts causing harm, including emotional injury, could be actionable. The American doctrine evolved through state court decisions in the mid‑20th century, gradually adopting the “extreme and outrageous” standard.
Common Defenses
- Consent – If the plaintiff consented to the conduct (e.g., a participant in a prank known to be potentially upsetting).
- Lack of intent or recklessness – Demonstrating that the defendant did not act with the requisite mental state.
- Insufficient severity – Arguing that the emotional distress was not severe enough to meet the legal threshold.
Damages
Remedies can include:
- Compensatory damages for medical expenses, therapy costs, and pain and suffering.
- Punitive damages where the defendant’s conduct is found to be particularly egregious, intended to deter similar behavior.
Notable Cases
- Garratt v. Dailey (1972) – Discussed the intent requirement in the context of a child’s conduct.
- Rogers v. American Airlines, Inc. (2020) – Illustrated the application of the “extreme and outrageous” standard in a commercial context.
Scholarly Commentary
Legal scholars have critiqued the “extreme and outrageous” standard for its subjectivity, suggesting that it may lead to inconsistent application across jurisdictions. Some propose a shift toward a more objective test focusing on the foreseeability of severe emotional harm.
Conclusion
Intentional infliction of emotional distress remains a distinct tort designed to protect individuals from severe emotional injury caused by purposeful or reckless conduct that is deemed beyond societal norms. The tort’s application varies by jurisdiction, and courts continue to refine the elements required to establish liability.
