Also known as: intentional infliction of emotional distress · IIED
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A tort imposing liability for extreme and outrageous conduct that intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another.
Ivy Ibarra organized a group to stand on a public roadside easement during a military memorial. They displayed signs criticizing government defense policy and one sign naming the deceased pilot. The protest stayed silent and non-disruptive. The pilot's family sued for intentional infliction of emotional harm after seeing the signs from the graveside.
Ike Ingram published a parody advertisement in his magazine depicting a public figure in a fabricated interview confessing to outrageous acts. The piece used obvious exaggeration and satirical framing that no reasonable reader would take as literal fact. The public figure sued for intentional infliction of emotional harm based on the publication.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Ingrid Innes supervised a city lifeguard unit and repeatedly subjected female employees to offensive touching and comments. The employees resigned and sued the city for intentional infliction of emotional harm arising from the supervisor's conduct.
Isaiah Ishikawa reported suspected criminal activity by a coworker to his employer. The employer fired him shortly afterward. Ishikawa sued for intentional infliction of emotional harm claiming the termination was retaliatory and caused severe distress.
Irene Ingalls published an article accusing a public official of corruption based on sources the paper knew were unreliable. The official sued for intentional infliction of emotional harm after the story caused him severe distress and reputational damage.
Iain Irons repeatedly followed a public figure and her children in his vehicle, blocked their path, and took intrusive photographs at close range. The public figure sued for intentional infliction of emotional harm arising from the persistent harassment.
Yes. Speech on matters of public concern receives special First Amendment protection even when it causes severe emotional distress. Peaceful, non-disruptive picketing on public land accompanied by offensive signs is protected, and tort liability is barred absent additional unprotected conduct.
No. A public figure cannot recover absent a false statement of fact made with actual malice. Outrageous parody or opinion that no reasonable person would interpret as stating actual facts does not give rise to liability.
The plaintiff must show that the speech falls outside First Amendment protection, such as by proving actual malice for defamation or identifying additional unprotected conduct like true threats.
No. The key factors are whether the speech addresses matters of public concern and occurs in a public forum without independent unprotected conduct. Timing near a funeral does not by itself strip protection.
…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…