Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress is defined as intentionally or recklessly causing another person severe emotional distress through extreme or outrageous acts. For example, in yet another federal case, the plaintiff sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress due to being beaten and pepper-sprayed by police. Intentional infliction of emotional distress or mental distress is a tort claim for intentional conduct that results in mental reaction such as anguish, grief, or fright to another person’s actions that entails recoverable damages. 2d at 443–45. Unlike other intentional torts, transferred intent doctrine does not apply to intentional infliction of emotional distress, except in the following situation: (1) the victim's immediate family member is hurt from defendant's conduct, (2) the victim was present at the scene, and (3) the victim's presence was known to the defendant. But weight loss, embarrassment, confusion, and one visit to a psychologist didn’t show emotional distress that was sufficiently severe. The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) occurs when one acts abominably or outrageously with intent to cause another to suffer severe emotional distress, such as issuing the threat of future harm.. Prima Facie Case. Gross negligence is the "lack of slight diligence or care" or "a conscious, voluntary act or omission in reckless disregard of a legal duty and of the consequences to another party." Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. See Fletcher v. Western National Life Insurance Co., 10 Cal.App.3d 376 (1970). False Explanation: If the facts warrant, LGBT employees may bring civil tort actions such as intentional infliction of emotional distress, intentional interference with contractual relations, invasion of privacy, or defamation. ISG Lackawanna, Inc. III. Overview. There are several intentional torts recognized by most states , including battery, assault, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, trespass to land, trespass to chattels and conversion. The underlying concept is that one has a legal duty to use reasonable care to avoid causing emotional distress to another individual. Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that speech on a matter of public concern, on a public street, cannot be the basis of liability for a tort of emotional distress, even in the circumstances that the speech is viewed or interpreted as "offensive" or "outrageous".. Long’s article surfaces a host of interesting issues that cannot be adequately addressed here. Some jurisdictions refer to IIED as the tort of outrage. Intentional torts, on the other hand, occur when a person intentionally acts in a certain way that leads to another person's injury. Finally, for liabilities based on an intentional tort (typically the intentional infliction of emotional distress), most courts permit recovery if the plaintiff can prove that the tortious conduct was a substantial factor in causing the suicide (P. 32). This can be a result of either the Defendant's acts or words. The tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) is a controversial cause of action, which is available in nearly all U.S. states but is severely constrained and limited in the majority of them. 1 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress The district court denied the defendants motion for judgment as a 2 3 matter of law on the plaintiff s claim for intentional infliction of emotional 4 distress ( IIED ). Turley, 960 F. Supp. Certain kinds of behavior, under specific conditions, can be deeply offensive and psychologically damaging to other people, even if there is no threat of physical harm. In some jurisdictions a person injured as a result of gross negligence may be able to recover punitive damages from the person who caused the injury or loss.. Negligence is the opposite of diligence, or being careful.