Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)
Rule
One who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another is liable for that distress, and if bodily harm results, for such bodily harm — even in the absence of physical impact or injury.
Elements
- Intentional or reckless conduct by the defendant.
- Extreme and outrageous conduct — conduct so intolerable that an average person would exclaim “Outrageous!” (Restatement 2d §46). Does not protect against the insults and irritations of everyday life.
- Causal connection between defendant’s conduct and plaintiff’s distress.
- Severe emotional distress — distress of the type that no reasonable person could be expected to endure.
Key Points
- No physical injury required (State Rubbish Collectors Ass’n v. Siliznoff; Womack v. Eldridge).
- Plaintiff is held to an objective standard: “a person of reasonable and ordinary sensitivity” — no eggshell plaintiff rule.
- Context matters: public transport (captive audience, common carrier duties) can make conduct outrageous that would not otherwise qualify.
- Third-party claims: recovery available where defendant’s extreme conduct causes severe distress to a member of plaintiff’s immediate family who is present.
Constitutional Limit for Public Figures
- IIED cannot be used to impose liability on publications about public figures without meeting the actual malice standard (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth — NY Times v. Sullivan).
- First Amendment protects parody of public figures on matters of public concern (Hustler Magazine v. Falwell).
Policy
- Protects mental and emotional tranquility as an independent interest.
- Jury is well-positioned to evaluate emotional distress from everyday experience.
- Limits: fear of fraudulent claims; no “eggshell plaintiff” rule.
Key Cases
- State Rubbish Collectors Ass’n v. Siliznoff — Traynor, J.; IIED recognized as independent tort without requiring bodily injury.
- Womack v. Eldridge — Virginia recognizes IIED; outrageous conduct to obtain photographs for criminal defense.
- Hustler Magazine v. Falwell — 1st Amendment bars IIED recovery by public figures for parody/satire on public concerns.
- Snyder v. Phelps — funeral protest; speech on public concern; First Amendment shields defendant.