Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Torts - Week 5, Day 2 - IIED

    Uploaded by

    Andrea Alice Trewinnard
    4 views2 pages
    This document summarizes the creation and elements of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). It discusses a 1952 case, State Rubbish Collectors Association v. Siliznoff, in which the California Supreme Court established IIED as a new cause of action. The court recognized that intentionally causing severe emotional harm should be actionable, even without physical injury or assault. The document then outlines the prima facie case for IIED, requiring severe emotional harm, extreme and outrageous conduct, and intent to cause harm or reckless disregard of the risk of harm. It notes examples of IIED cases in marriage, religion, and workplace contexts.

    Original Description:

    Torts Notes

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes the creation and elements of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). It discusses a 1952 case, State Rubbish Collectors Association v. Siliznoff, in which the California Supreme Court established IIED as a new cause of action. The court recognized that intentionally causing severe emotional harm should be actionable, even without physical injury or assault. The document then outlines the prima facie case for IIED, requiring severe emotional harm, extreme and outrageous conduct, and intent to cause harm or reckless disregard of the risk of harm. It notes examples of IIED cases in marriage, religion, and workplace contexts.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    4 views2 pages

    Torts - Week 5, Day 2 - IIED

    Uploaded by

    Andrea Alice Trewinnard
    This document summarizes the creation and elements of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). It discusses a 1952 case, State Rubbish Collectors Association v. Siliznoff, in which the California Supreme Court established IIED as a new cause of action. The court recognized that intentionally causing severe emotional harm should be actionable, even without physical injury or assault. The document then outlines the prima facie case for IIED, requiring severe emotional harm, extreme and outrageous conduct, and intent to cause harm or reckless disregard of the risk of harm. It notes examples of IIED cases in marriage, religion, and workplace contexts.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    Intro: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

    Week 5, Day 2 (Wed)

    1. Creation of New Law: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress


    State Rubbish Collectors Association v. Siliznoff (1952) (Trash Mob)
    a. Trash mob intimidates a trash collector that is not a member of the
    mob, for collecting on what they think should be their route.
    b. In the MO, J. Traynor finds a 3rd option, authoring new law that is
    persuasive and has precedent
    i. Option 1: Not assault so assault doesnt apply
    ii. Option 2: Is assault we are going to expand the definition
    iii. Picks Option 3: We need to give protection to freestanding
    psychological/emotional interests and create new law
    1. Traynor has 3 arguments
    a. Policy argument: broad principle of fairness, justice,
    decency
    b. Legal argument: legally arbitrary to recognize
    physical and not emotional
    c. Administrative arguments:
    i. Evidence (worried about lying) leave it up to
    the jury
    ii. Floodgate (is it moderate or serious
    emotional damage) leave it up to the jury
    c. Good facts routed in the quasi-physical help Traynor extend protection
    to emotional harm
    2. IIED: Prima Facie Case Reckless Liability
    Rest. 3rd 45 (IIED)
    a. Result: SEVERE EMOTIONAL HARM
    b. (voluntary) Act: that is EXTREME & OUTRAGEOUS
    i. is D pursuing a legitimate interest
    ii. is D pursuing her interest in a legitimate way
    c. Intent:
    i. Purpose of Severe Emotional Harm
    ii. OR Reckless knowledge of a grave risk of emotional harm
    1. Between Knowledge w/ SC (battery) of harm and
    Knowledge w/ SC of Unreasonable risk (negligence)
    d. Whats the difference between knowledge of grave risk (reckless) and
    knowledge of a (grossly) unreasonable risk (negligence)
    i. Some people see recklessness as a gross risk associated with
    negligence (quantitative interpretation of recklessness)
    1. Reasonable person should have known
    ii. HOWEVER, we think (STANDARD VIEW) recklessness is
    intentional b/c you are CHOOSING willful blindness, trying to
    maintain plausible liability (qualitative interpretation of
    recklessness)
    1. Reasonable person would have known
    3. IIED Marriage Cases
    Jackson v. Brown (Utah, 1995)
    Whelan v. Whelan (Ct., 1991)
    4. IIED Religious Cases

    Intro: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

    5. IIED Marriage Cases


    IIED Religious Cases
    IIED Workplace Cases

    Week 5, Day 2 (Wed)

    You might also like