Also known as: intentionally inflict · intentional inflictions · IIED · intentional infliction of emotional distress
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An intentional act by which an actor deliberately causes harmful or offensive bodily contact, serious bodily harm, or severe emotional distress to another. The conduct must be volitional and directed at producing the prohibited result, with liability following even when the resulting injury exceeds what the actor anticipated.
Isaac Irving installed a spring-loaded device on the fence surrounding his remote warehouse after repeated break-ins. When Ibrahim Iqbal forced open the gate at night to steal equipment, the device fired and caused permanent leg damage. Because Iqbal's intrusion would have justified deadly force if Irving had been present, the device use falls within the privilege and Irving incurs no liability for the resulting harm.
Members of Indigo Textiles assembled on a public easement outside a military funeral and displayed signs criticizing government defense policy. The signs caused Idina Iverson, a grieving family member, to suffer severe anxiety requiring medical treatment. Because the speech addressed matters of public concern and occurred peacefully on public land without additional unprotected conduct, no tort liability arises.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Ian Iverson, an officer of Ironclad Industries, diverted corporate funds to a personal venture that harmed the company's shareholders. The board later sought to hold him accountable under the statute. Because the conduct constituted an intentional infliction of harm on the corporation and its owners, the statutory safe harbor does not protect Ian from personal liability.
Ike Ingram discovered an armed trespasser inside his home at night. Believing the intruder would kill him unless stopped, Ike shot and seriously wounded the intruder. The use of deadly force satisfies the privilege because Ike reasonably believed the intruder posed an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm to him.
Imperial Motors published a parody advertisement depicting a public-figure minister in a humiliating scenario. The minister sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Because the publication contained no false statement of fact made with actual malice, the First Amendment bars recovery even though the content caused genuine distress.
India Inoue faced an attacker who lunged at her with a knife in a dark alley. She struck back with a metal pipe, fracturing the attacker's skull and causing permanent brain injury. The blow qualifies as serious bodily harm, yet the force remains privileged because India reasonably believed the attacker threatened her with death or equivalent injury.
Battery requires only intent to cause harmful or offensive contact. Once that intent and resulting contact are shown, the defendant is liable for all resulting bodily harm even if the injury is more severe than anticipated.
The First Amendment bars liability when the speech addresses matters of public concern, occurs peacefully on public land, and involves no additional unprotected conduct such as fighting words or true threats.
Serious bodily harm differs in kind from ordinary harm and includes injuries creating a substantial risk of death, constituting mayhem, or causing permanent loss of function of an important organ or member.
…affairs, sued petitioner and its publisher, petitioner Larry Flynt, to recover damages for invasion of privacy, libel, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The District Court directed a verdict against respondent on the privacy claim, and submitted the other two claims to a jury. The jury found for petitioners on the defamation claim, but…