ProfessorMelissa A. Hale
CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"
Brief Fact Summary. Defendant was Plaintiff’s supervisor at a factory, and was aware that Plaintiff suffered from a speech impediment causing him to stutter. Defendant frequently mocked Plaintiff and his condition on the job, causing him to feel distress. Plaintiff sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. For intentional infliction of emotional distress: 1) the conduct must be intentional or reckless; 2) the conduct must be extreme and outrageous; 3) the wrongful conduct must cause the distress; and 4) the emotional distress must be severe.
Issue. Was the Appellate Court correct to reverse the verdict based upon its finding that there was insufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude that the wrongful conduct caused the distress and that the distress was severe?
Held. Yes. The reversal of the verdict was affirmed.
* In determining whether conduct is outrageous, the totality of the circumstances must be considered. The environment and characteristics of the individuals involved must be taken into account.
* Whether conduct can be considered outrageous is initially a question for the judge. When reasonable people could form different opinions as to whether conduct was outrageous, it is a question for the jury.
* The severity of the emotional distress must be proven by the Plaintiff and must also be considered in light of the totality of the circumstances.
Where a board's process for negotiating and reviewing investment-adviser compensation is robust, a reviewing court should afford commensurate deference to the outcome of the bargaining process.View Full Point of Law