Infliction of Emotional Distress Cases

Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

Infliction of Emotional Distress

Zalnis v. Thoroughbred Datsun Car Co.FACTS:

The plaintiff purchased a car from the defendant at a loss, upon finding out thedefendant recalled the car to avoid a bad bargain. The plaintiff refused to give up her car butultimately was taken from her. During her attempt to recover the car, she was berated by thedefendant. The defendant had known the plaintiff for many years and knew that the plaintiff hadwatched her husband killed himself. The defendant moved for partial summary of judgment onthe outrageous claims and was granted by the trial court.

ISSUE:

Whether the defendant intended actions amount to outrageous conduct susceptible toinflict emotional distress when he knew she watched her husband kill himself.

RULE:

For the purposes of infliction emotional distress, the plaintiff must prove the defendantintended to cause or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another and such harmresulted from it. The outrageous character conduct may rise from the person’s knowledge thatthe person is peculiarly susceptible to emotional distress by reason of physical or mentalcondition or peculiarity and that a reasonable person can differ there was an outrageous conduct.

APPLICATION:

Here, the defendant knew the plaintiff for many years and was aware that the plaintiff watched her husband killed himself making her susceptible to emotional stress.

CONCLUSION:

Therefore, the defendant was aware of her emotional susceptibility and actedintentionally or recklessly, causing her severe emotional distress.

Strauss v. Cilek FACTS:

The defendant had being having romantic and sexual relationship with plaintiff’s wife.The plaintiff wasn’t aware of the affair until it was over. The defendant had expressed theintention of leaving his wife and children to pursue a permanent relationship with the plaintiff’swife and record shows the plaintiff’s wife was unhappy in her marriage and that she had previousengage in extramarital affairs with another of the plaintiff’s friend.

ISSUE:

Whether the defendant’s action constitutes outrageous conduct capable of inflictingemotional distress when he had an affair with the plaintiff’s wife.

RULE:

For the purpose of emotional distress, for an act to constitute outrageous, it must be soextreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency to be regarded as atrocious andutterly intolerable in a civilized community.

APPLICATION:

Here, the defendant did had an affair with the plaintiff’s wife, but recordsshows (1) he was genuine about leaving his family to purse a permanent relationship with the plaintiff’s wife, (2) the wife had engage in a previous extramarital affair with the another plaintiff’s good friend and (3) that she was unhappy in her marriage. While the affair wasn’tcondoned, it would not cause a reasonable person to consider it outrageous.

CONCLUSION:

Therefore, the defendant’s conduct is not outrageous. Decision of the trialcourt is reverse and remanded for entry of an order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Miller v. Willbanks.FACTS:

The plaintiff had a baby, who was later diagnosed by the defendant has suffering fromDrug Withdraw Syndrome. The defendant claimed such illness can only occur because the plaintiff had use drugs during her pregnancy. Rumor circulated about the plaintiff and her drug baby at which point they were treated rudely by nurses, and questioned by a social worker abouttheir lifestyles. The defendant requested a drug test to which the plaintiff agreed. The drug testcame back negative but the defendant disregard the test and reported the plaintiff to HealthDepartment. The plaintiff was questioned again by a social worker regarding their livingarrangements and examined the baby. The plaintiff sued the defendant for emotional distress.The defendant moved for a dismissal judgment on the count that the plaintiffs’ lack expertevidence to support their claims of serious mental injury and was the motion was granted by thetrial court.

ISSUE:

Whether expert medical proof of mental injury is required to maintain claim for severeemotional distress when he accused plaintiff of using drugs.

RULE:

For the purpose of establishing infliction of emotional distress, an expert proof isgenerally not required as long as the plaintiff can show that the defendant’s conduct is sooutrageous that it is not tolerated by a civilized society.

APPLICATION:

Here, the defendant humiliate, shame, embarrass and anger the plaintiff whenhe accused them of taking drugs during pregnancy, caused them to worry and be treated rudely.Based on the outrageous conduct of the defendant, it is not beyond a reasonable personcomprehension to differ that such conduct can’t inflict emotional distress.

CONCLUSION:

Therefore, expert medical or scientific proof of serious mental injury is notrequired to maintain claim for intentional emotional distress. The judgment of the trial andappeal court is reversed and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

of 00

Category:	Uncategorized.
Rating:
Upload Date:	10/28/2009
Copyright:	Attribution Non-commercial
Tags:	This document has no tags.

Documents

People