Also known as:extreme and outrageous · outrageous conduct · IIED element · outrage
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Conduct that exceeds all possible bounds of decency and is regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. This quality of behavior supplies the central element of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress when paired with intent or recklessness and resulting severe emotional harm.
Sources & Authorities· 3 primary sources
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Model Codes
Restatements
Study Supplements
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Sustained Intimidation Campaign
Call-center supervisor Dana Ruiz repeatedly flagged customer Jordan Lee's account and directed agents to falsely warn of terrorism monitoring while arranging repeated late-night robocalls with ominous threats. Jordan developed severe anxiety, insomnia, and stress-related ulcers. The coordinated campaign of fabricated threats from a service provider that controlled Jordan's communications lifeline meets the threshold of extreme outrageousness and supports liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Retaliatory False Diagnosis
Surgeon Dr. Lopez, angered by patient Maria Reyes's complaints, deliberately told her that lab results showed an untreatable disfiguring disease even though he knew the results were normal and then withheld the truth for hours. Maria suffered repeated panic attacks and severe insomnia. The calculated exploitation of the physician-patient relationship through a fabricated life-altering diagnosis satisfies extreme outrageousness and supports both compensatory and punitive damages.
Public Funeral Protest
Zara organized twenty advocates to stand on a public sidewalk beside a cemetery during Leah's private burial service and display signs labeling the deceased a slumlord while chanting criticisms of housing policy. Leah and the family inside the grounds suffered severe emotional distress. The timing and personal targeting at a moment of heightened vulnerability support a finding of extreme outrageousness sufficient to overcome First Amendment protection in the tort claim.
BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore517 U.S. 559, 575, 580-81 (1996)
Hidden Recording Intrusion
A reporter posing as a patient secretly recorded healer Dietemann in his home office while asking about medical conditions and later broadcast the footage. Dietemann suffered severe emotional distress from the invasion. The surreptitious recording and public dissemination of private medical conversations in a place of apparent sanctuary constitute extreme outrageousness supporting liability.
Dietemann v. Time, Inc.449 F.2d 245 (9th Cir. 1971)
False Public Accusation
A newspaper columnist published statements accusing high-school coach Milkovich of lying under oath about a brawl at a wrestling match. Milkovich suffered severe emotional distress and reputational harm. The deliberate publication of a provably false factual assertion that branded the coach a perjurer meets the standard of extreme outrageousness.
Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.497 U.S. 1 (1990)
Warrantless Home Invasion
Federal agents entered Webster Bivens's apartment without a warrant, searched every room, and arrested him in front of his family. Bivens suffered severe emotional distress from the unannounced intrusion. The agents' deliberate violation of Fourth Amendment protections in the sanctity of the home satisfies extreme outrageousness and supports a damages action.
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
4
What must a plaintiff show to prove that conduct meets the extreme outrageousness element of intentional infliction of emotional distress?+
The plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant's conduct went beyond all possible bounds of decency and would be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Courts evaluate the context, including any power imbalance or exploitation of vulnerability, to determine whether a reasonable jury could find the conduct outrageous. Sustained campaigns of intimidation or calculated lies about life-altering diagnoses in a professional relationship routinely satisfy the element.
Supporting sources
Can extreme outrageousness support punitive damages even without a separate IIED claim?
Yes. When conduct is outrageous because of evil motive or reckless indifference to others' rights, punitive damages may be awarded to punish and deter. The same facts that establish extreme outrageousness for IIED liability can independently justify a punitive award under the governing standard.
Supporting sources
Does extreme outrageousness directed at a third person allow a bystander family member to recover?+
Yes. When outrageous conduct is aimed at one person, an immediate family member who is present may recover for resulting severe emotional distress even without bodily harm. A non-family bystander present at the time may recover only if the distress produces bodily harm.
Supporting sources
How does the extreme outrageousness requirement limit fraudulent or trivial claims?+
The requirement confines liability to extraordinary instances of misbehavior that are more likely to produce genuine severe distress. Ordinary rudeness or isolated insults fall short, while sustained campaigns or exploitation of professional trust cross the threshold and reduce the risk of fabricated suits.
Supporting sources
outrage
. We, in common with all rational minds, would say that the police response must relate to the gravity and need; that a "shoot" order might conceivably be tolerable to prevent the escape of…
outrage
perpetrated by the unauthorized use of their pictures for advertising purposes.” (Emphasis supplied.) 122 Ga. at 218-19. Thus it is shown that, while our learned forefather on this Court…
at what occurred, intensified by the fact that the mother, who actually beat the child to death, was held to be not responsible for her criminal acts. But it is the law, not indignation,…
Constitutional LawIndividual rights · First Amendment freedomsUBEFoundational