Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

emotional harm

Read a random definition: tacit prorogation

A quick definition of emotional harm:

Emotional harm, also known as emotional distress, is when someone's behavior causes another person to feel very bad emotions like sadness, fear, anger, or humiliation. This can be so severe that it can lead to mental suffering and pain. In some cases, if the emotional distress is extreme, the person who caused it can be held responsible and may have to pay damages. However, it's important to remember that some level of emotional distress is a normal part of life and only severe cases can be considered emotional harm.

A more thorough explanation:

Emotional harm, also known as emotional distress, is a highly unpleasant mental reaction that results from another person's conduct. It can include feelings of anguish, grief, fright, humiliation, or fury, and can cause emotional pain and suffering.

When emotional distress is severe enough, it can form a basis for the recovery of tort damages. This means that if someone causes you severe emotional distress, you may be able to sue them for compensation.

For example, if someone intentionally spreads false rumors about you that cause you to feel humiliated and ashamed, you may be able to sue them for emotional distress. Similarly, if a doctor negligently causes you to suffer a serious injury, and you experience emotional distress as a result, you may be able to sue them for compensation.

It's important to note that not all emotional distress is severe enough to warrant legal action. Some degree of transient and trivial emotional distress is a part of everyday life. The law only intervenes when the distress inflicted is so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it.

emotional abuse | emotional incapacity

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
yeah there are so many good cuisines in ithaca
renard99
22:31
@lilypadfrog: that’s a pity I’da be liking them all
texaslawhopefully
22:31
Only food I’m going to miss for sure if I leave Texas is texmex
22:31
waspy hasnt had thai food in ithaca yet. ithaca thai is so good
^^^^ truuuuuu
22:32
there are two major thai places and they have very similar names bc a divorced husband and wife own them lol
22:32
personally i think taste of thai is better than taste of thai express but thats just me
i had pho tho and it was really good and huge portions
texaslawhopefully
22:32
Glad they have good Thai food, I love Thai food! Can’t wait to visit :)
22:33
when tex goes to ithaca i want to come
Dkk
22:34
Crying Tiger, best Thai dish.
damn im so hungry all i had today was a curry tonkatsu and buldak
and it was a lil baby noodle cup
vvv hungry
22:36
curry tonkatsu so yummeh
22:36
whats even open rn? pizza?
CTB is it i think
22:37
is collegetown pizza not open
22:37
i used to get a slice from there or wings over at like 1am after my shift at the restaurant
Dkk
22:48
Ross Ulbricht free. God Bless Trump. Huge win.
JeremyFragrance
22:54
agreed
texaslawhopefully
22:55
This is an interesting read: https://thedispatch.com/article/birthright-citizenship-trump-implications/
Dkk
23:01
I mean, idk how it's possible to end birth right citizenship without amending the constitution because to me the 14th amendment is pretty clear about it.
ross ulbricht tried to hire a hitman to kill 5 people
i am not that sympathetic to him
Dkk
23:04
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That might have been an FBI agent. It was most likely him and he was most likely doing it to retrieve stolen funds that corrupt FBI agents stole, but yeah moral gray area but me personally, cool with hitmen. It's not like it is uncommon to hire hitmen. I don't think the action itself is necessarily wrong but the intent behind it can be.
Dkk
23:05
Like, Boeing whistblowers being killed by hitmen = wrong but a guy hiring hitmen to retrieve stolen funds = good to me.
texaslawhopefully
23:05
@Dkk: Yeah, for sure. My guess is it'll go to SCOTUS and it'll be 8-1 or 7-2, saying that EO was unconstitutional.
Dkk
23:06
Indeed. I need a count for how many exectuive orders he has signed and how many already have pending lawsuits.
i've been away for a while what were the most recent waves? any this week?
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.