/UT-er-lee in-TOL-uh-ruh-bul in uh si-vuh-LIZED kuh-MYOO-ni-tee/·phrase
Also known as:extreme and outrageous
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
An extreme and outrageous conduct standard that exceeds all possible bounds of decency and is regarded as atrocious. The standard requires conduct so far outside tolerable behavior that it produces severe emotional distress in the target or certain bystanders.
See Our Sources
How its tested
Common Examples
3
Supervisor's Repeated Threats
Harlan, a farm cooperative supervisor, repeatedly told migrant worker Vargas during shifts that he would report her family to immigration authorities for deportation if she refused his sexual demands. He described detention conditions in graphic detail in front of laughing coworkers. Vargas suffered chronic nightmares and fainting spells. A court applying the standard finds the conduct qualifies because it exploited her economic dependence and family safety in a sustained public manner.
Public Funeral Protest
Members of a church group picketed a soldier's funeral with signs accusing the family of raising a homosexual and blaming national tragedies on the military. The father witnessed the protest while burying his son. The court holds that the speech, though protected, does not meet the standard because it addressed matters of public concern rather than targeting the family with conduct beyond all decency.
Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder was killed in action in Iraq. His father, Albert Snyder, arranged for the funeral to be held in Westminster, Maryland. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church, an unincorporated association founded by Fred Phelps, learned of the funeral through local newspapers and decided to picket it to communicate their belief that God punishes the United States for its tolerance of homosexuality.
On the day of the funeral, Westboro members displayed placards on public land approximately 1,000 feet from the church where the service was held. The signs included messages such as "God Hates the USA," "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "Pope in Hell," "Priests Rape Boys," "You’re Going to Hell," and "God Hates Fags." The picketing took place for about 30 minutes before the funeral began. The funeral procession passed within 200 to 300 feet of the picketers. Church members also posted an online "epic" that discussed Matthew Snyder’s funeral and criticized his parents.
Albert Snyder filed a diversity action in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against Fred Phelps, his daughters, and the Westboro Baptist Church. The suit alleged claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, intrusion upon seclusion, and civil conspiracy. A jury found for Snyder and awarded $2.9 million in compensatory damages and $8 million in punitive damages.
The district court reduced the punitive damages award to $2.1 million but left the verdict otherwise intact. The Fourth Circuit reversed the judgment, holding that Westboro’s statements were protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review whether the First Amendment shields the church members from tort liability for their picketing speech.
A driver struck and killed a child while the mother watched from across the street. The mother suffered severe emotional trauma. The court applies the standard to determine whether the driver's conduct was so extreme that liability extends to the mother's distress even without physical impact on her.
On September 27, 1964, at approximately 4:30 p.m., at the intersection of Blue Ridge Road and Chenango Avenue in Sacramento County, defendant David Legg operated his motor vehicle in such a manner that it struck and killed two-year-old Erin Lee Dillon. Plaintiff Cheryl Dillon, the mother of the deceased child, was a pedestrian at or near the intersection in close proximity to the accident and actually witnessed the impact and death of her daughter. Plaintiff Robert Dillon, the minor brother of the deceased, was also a pedestrian in close proximity to the accident and witnessed the impact and death of his sister.
The complaint set forth three separate counts seeking recovery for the resulting injuries. In the first count, Cheryl Dillon alleged that as a direct and proximate result of the defendant's negligence she suffered fright, shock, and mental anguish and sustained physical injuries along with great emotional and physical pain and suffering. The second count alleged that Robert Dillon suffered great emotional and physical pain and suffering as a direct and proximate result of witnessing the accident. The third count alleged that Clyde Dillon, the father of the deceased minor, sustained a loss of the affection, society, and companionship of his daughter and incurred funeral and burial expenses.
Defendant demurred to the complaint on the ground that it failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The trial court sustained the demurrers without leave to amend and entered a judgment of dismissal in favor of the defendant. Plaintiffs appealed from that judgment to the Supreme Court of California.
In related proceedings, the trial court granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings against the mother's cause of action but denied a similar motion as to the sister's cause of action, and later denied a motion for summary judgment on the sister's claim. The case thus presented claims by a mother who was not within the zone of danger and by a sibling who may have been within it.
What conduct satisfies the standard for extreme and outrageous behavior?
Conduct must go beyond all possible bounds of decency and be regarded as atrocious. Mere insults, indignities, or petty oppressions do not qualify. Courts examine whether the actor abused a position of power, targeted a vulnerable plaintiff, or acted repeatedly in public view.
Supporting sources
Does the standard require bodily harm for recovery?
No. Severe emotional distress alone supports liability when the conduct is extreme and outrageous. Bodily harm extends recovery but is not required for the primary claim.
Supporting sources
How does the standard apply when conduct targets a third person?
Liability reaches an immediate family member present at the scene who suffers severe emotional distress. A non-family bystander present at the time may recover only if the distress produces bodily harm.
Supporting sources
Is a single false statement enough to meet the standard?
A single lie is usually insufficient unless it exploits a special relationship such as doctor-patient and is delivered graphically with intent to frighten. Sustained campaigns or public humiliation more readily satisfy the threshold.
Supporting sources
What role does the plaintiff's vulnerability play?
Exploiting known economic dependence, immigration status, or family safety heightens the outrageous character of the conduct. Courts weigh the power imbalance between the parties.
Supporting sources
562 U.S. 443 (2011)
…in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.” Post , at 2–3 (opinion of ALITO, J.) (quoting Harris v. Jones , 281 Md. 560, 567, 571, 380 A. 2d 611, 614, 616 (1977); internal quotation marks omitted). The dissent requires us to ask…