by Krystle Hernandez

Created on: July 24, 2010

The legal term “Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress” falls within the scope of the Law of Torts.  Black’s Law Dictionary defines torts as civil wrongs, other than those that amount to a breach of contract, for which a party can obtain a remedy at law, most often in the form of monetary damages.  Moreover, when individuals who are engaged in particular kinds of relationships with one another (e.g. spouses, attorney/clients, trustees/beneficiaries, etc.) and one or more of the parties breaches the duty imposed on them by the law.

The concept of “emotional distress” is rooted in public policy notions that individuals have a right to personal dignity and integrity.  When a person’s emotional stability and/or well-being is compromised, the law recognizes that the individual who caused such an instability should be required to compensate his or her victim.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines Intentional infliction of emotional distress, also known as IIED, as “the tort of intentionally or recklessly causing another person severe emotional distress through one’s extreme or outrageous acts.”  IIED is generally classified as an intentional tort, meaning that the actor must have undertaken a voluntary act which was the proximate cause of the victim’s emotional distress.

Generally speaking, unpleasant emotions such as fear, anger, or humiliation fall within the meaning of emotional distress, particularly when these emotions are the result of another individual’s behavior or actions.  Although, arguably, the determination of whether an individual is suffering from emotional distress is objective; the term “emotional distress” is also, to a certain degree, subjective in nature.  In other words, although one individual may experience severe emotional distress as the result of an act, another person may not have a similar reaction to the same act.  Nevertheless, if a party claims that he or she is experiencing emotional distress, the court must determine whether or not the party’s symptoms are reasonably connected to the event that the claimant suggests was the cause of his or her distress, and, if it is, whether or not the individual experiencing the effects of emotional distress is warranted in doing so.

IIED should be distinguished from “Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress” or NIED, which also occurs when an individual causes

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>