Also known as: intentional infliction of emotional distress · IIED · tort of outrage
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An intentional tort imposing liability when a defendant engages in extreme and outrageous conduct that intentionally or recklessly causes another severe emotional distress. Liability extends to an immediate family member who is present when the conduct is directed at a third person and the defendant intentionally or recklessly causes that family member severe distress.
Members of a small church picket on public land near a military funeral, displaying signs with political and moral messages about government policy and homosexuality. The father of the deceased soldier suffers severe emotional distress from the signs and sues the church for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Because the speech addresses matters of public concern and the picketing is peaceful and non-disruptive, the claim fails.
A national magazine publishes a parody advertisement depicting a well-known minister in a crude and offensive scenario. The minister sues the magazine for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The parody contains no false statement of fact made with actual malice and no reasonable reader would interpret it as stating actual facts, so the claim is barred.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A city lifeguard supervisor repeatedly subjects female employees to offensive touching and sexual comments. One employee suffers severe emotional distress and sues the city for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The city's failure to implement adequate preventive and remedial measures supports vicarious liability for the supervisor's conduct.
A company fires an employee after he reports suspected criminal activity by a coworker. The employee claims the firing and subsequent statements caused severe emotional distress and sues for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Because the employment relationship is at-will and the conduct does not meet the extreme and outrageous threshold independent of the termination, the claim fails.
A credit union employee alleges repeated racial slurs and discriminatory treatment by supervisors. She sues for intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from the harassment. The claim is evaluated under the same standards that govern post-formation conduct under federal civil rights statutes, limiting recovery to conduct that satisfies the tort's independent elements.
A newspaper publishes an article accusing a judicial candidate of suppressing evidence of misconduct. The candidate sues the paper for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Because the reporting involved actual malice and the plaintiff cannot show the requisite outrageous conduct beyond protected speech, the claim does not succeed.
No. A direct victim may recover for severe emotional distress alone. When the conduct is directed at a third person, an immediate family member who is present may also recover without proving bodily harm.
Supporting sources
Yes. An immediate family member who is present may recover if the defendant intentionally or recklessly causes that family member severe emotional distress.
Supporting sources
Yes. Speech on matters of public concern receives special protection even when it causes severe emotional distress, barring tort liability absent additional unprotected conduct.
Supporting sources
…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…