Legal Definitions - intentional infliction of emotional distress

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) is a legal term for a civil wrong (a "tort") that occurs when one person's extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes another person to suffer severe emotional distress.

To successfully claim IIED, several key elements must be present:

• Extreme and Outrageous Conduct: The actions of the person causing the distress must be truly shocking and intolerable, going beyond what a reasonable person in a civilized society should have to endure. It's not just rude, annoying, or insensitive behavior, but rather conduct that is utterly beyond the bounds of decency.
• Intentional or Reckless Behavior: The person committing the act must have either specifically intended to cause severe emotional distress, or they must have acted with reckless disregard for the high probability that their actions would cause such distress.
• Severe Emotional Distress: The emotional suffering experienced by the victim must be significant and debilitating. This means more than just temporary upset, sadness, or annoyance; it often involves distress so profound that it interferes with daily life, requires medical attention, or leads to significant psychological harm.
• Causation: There must be a direct link between the outrageous conduct and the severe emotional distress suffered by the victim. The conduct must be the actual cause of the distress.

It's important to note that courts balance IIED claims with First Amendment rights to free speech. Merely offensive or critical speech, especially about public figures, typically does not qualify as IIED unless it crosses into truly outrageous and non-expressive behavior.

Here are some examples to illustrate IIED:

• Example 1: Malicious Hoax

  Imagine a disgruntled former employee, seeking revenge, calls their ex-boss's elderly mother and falsely informs her that her son has been arrested for a serious crime and is facing a long prison sentence. The mother, who has a known heart condition, suffers a severe panic attack and requires hospitalization due to the shock and distress caused by the fabricated story.

  How this illustrates IIED: The former employee's act of fabricating a serious and distressing lie about the son is extreme and outrageous. They acted intentionally or recklessly, knowing the mother's vulnerability and the likely impact of such news. The mother's hospitalization due to a panic attack demonstrates severe emotional distress, and the false phone call was the direct cause of that distress.

• Example 2: Persistent Harassment in a Vulnerable Situation

  A landlord, wanting to evict a tenant who recently lost their job and is struggling financially, repeatedly and falsely threatens to call child protective services on the tenant, knowing they have young children and are already under immense stress. The landlord also frequently enters the apartment without notice, leaves threatening notes, and intentionally damages some of the tenant's belongings, all with the goal of forcing them out.

  How this illustrates IIED: The landlord's pattern of false threats, illegal entry, and property damage, especially targeting a vulnerable tenant, constitutes extreme and outrageous conduct. The landlord acts intentionally to cause distress and force an eviction. The tenant's resulting severe anxiety, inability to sleep, and fear for their children's safety represent severe emotional distress, directly caused by the landlord's actions.

• Example 3: Public Humiliation and Degradation

  During a company holiday party, a senior executive, in front of all employees, makes a series of deeply personal and demeaning jokes about a specific employee's recent divorce and financial struggles, using sensitive information they had no right to share. The executive continues despite the employee's visible distress, causing the employee to suffer a public breakdown and subsequent severe depression requiring therapy.

  How this illustrates IIED: The executive's public humiliation and degradation of an employee using private, sensitive information is extreme and outrageous, especially given the power dynamic and public setting. The executive acted recklessly, if not intentionally, knowing the likely impact of such cruel remarks. The employee's public breakdown and subsequent severe depression demonstrate severe emotional distress, directly caused by the executive's actions.