ProfessorMelissa A. Hale
CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"
Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiff was a customer in Defendant’s store and asked an employee the price of an item. The employee insulted her by responding that “[i]f you want to know the price, you’ll have to find out the best way you can because “you stink to me”. Plaintiff, taken aback by the comment upon her bodily odor, brought suit forintentional infliction of emotional distress, and the trial court dismissed for failure to statea cause of action.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Mere expressions of insults or general abuse are not actionable unless it can be shown that they were intended to bring about severe emotional distress.
A line of demarcation should be drawn between conduct likely to cause mere emotional distress and that causing severe emotional distress.View Full Point of Law
Issue. Was the trial court correct to find that the Plaintiff’s allegations were insufficient to state an independent cause of action?
Held. Yes. The judgment was affirmed.
– Only such conduct as exceeds all bounds permissible in society can give rise to an independent claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
– The conduct complained of must be substantially certain to result in severe emotional distress.
– Mere insults or general abuse do not rise to the requisite level of outrageousness to allow for recovery for infliction of severe emotionaldistress.
Discussion. The Court recognized that a trend toward allowing causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress was emerging. The Court felt compelled, however, to place some limitations upon such claims. In this case, the concept of outrageousness is further defined, with the result that garden-variety insults are excluded from the conduct that can give rise to such a claim. This particular example, an insulting comment upon someone’s bodily odor, is found not to be sufficiently outrageous as to give rise to a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress.