Also known as: intentional infliction of emotional distress · reckless infliction of emotional distress · IIED · emotional distress tort
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A tort imposing liability for extreme and outrageous conduct that intentionally or recklessly causes another person severe emotional distress.
Ingrid Innes organized a small group to stand on a public sidewalk near a military funeral with signs expressing political opposition to government policy on homosexuality. Family members who attended the service later sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The claim failed because the conduct consisted of peaceful speech on a matter of public concern that received First Amendment protection.
Ike Ingram repeatedly made crude sexual comments to Isabella Ingram during her shifts at a city recreation department. After she reported the conduct to supervisors who took no action, Isabella sued the city for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court examined whether the city's failure to address the harassment met the threshold for employer liability under the governing standard.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Isaac Irving was stopped by officers during a diabetic episode and was forcibly restrained despite his protests. He later sued the officers for intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from the encounter. The court assessed the claim by applying an objective reasonableness standard to the officers' conduct under the circumstances.
Igor Ito changed the locks on Ines Ibarra's restaurant after a rent dispute, preventing her from accessing her business equipment. Ines sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on the sudden eviction. The court evaluated whether the landlord's self-help measures crossed into extreme and outrageous conduct.
Isabella Ingram reported suspected financial irregularities at Ivy Investments to her supervisor. She was fired the next day and sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court considered whether the termination decision alone satisfied the elements of the tort under state employment law.
Ingrid Innes alleged that a high-ranking official made unwanted advances during a work conference and later made defamatory statements about her. She brought an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against the official. The court addressed whether the suit could proceed while the official remained in office.
A public figure cannot recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on a publication absent a false statement of fact made with actual malice. Outrageous hurtful parody that no reasonable person would interpret as stating actual facts does not give rise to liability.
Supporting sources
The dispositive question is whether the reasonable reader would understand the publication as conveying actual facts about the plaintiff rather than as an exaggerated joke. Explicit satire labels, absurd images, and known humorous context prevent liability even when some readers initially treat the material as factual.
Supporting sources
Realistic formatting does not override clear signals of satire such as an explicit all-satire banner or patently ridiculous photographs. The overall context determines whether a reasonable person would interpret the material as stating actual facts.
Supporting sources
Yes. The First Amendment requires a public figure to prove a false statement of fact made with actual malice before recovering for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on a publication.
Supporting sources
…Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, 106 Stat. 73, note following 28 U.S.C. §1350, as well as claims for wrongful death and intentional infliction of emotional distress under the laws of California and Argentina. The incidents recounted in the complaint center on MB Argentina’s plant in Gonzalez Catan, Argentina; no part of MB Argentina’s alleged…