Also known as: highly offensive · extreme and outrageous · outrageous conduct
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A standard measuring whether conduct or a publication offends the sensibilities of an ordinary person in the community. The standard requires that the matter or act exceed ordinary tolerance and invade personal dignity or privacy interests in a way that a reasonable observer would find unacceptable.
Harlan repeatedly threatened Elena Vargas with immigration enforcement against her family unless she complied with sexual demands. The statements were made publicly in front of laughing coworkers and caused Vargas chronic nightmares and fainting spells. The conduct meets the standard because a reasonable person would find the targeted exploitation of economic and family vulnerability intolerable in a workplace setting.
A television station aired a report stating that Hannah Hale had been arrested for fraud when she had only been questioned and released. The report reached her professional colleagues and clients. The publication satisfies the standard because a reasonable person in Hale's position would regard the false implication of criminal guilt as highly damaging to reputation.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Hope Howard's former employer mailed copies of her confidential psychiatric treatment notes to her entire neighborhood association. The notes revealed personal details unrelated to any public controversy. The disclosure meets the standard because a reasonable person would consider the wide circulation of such intimate health information deeply invasive.
A newspaper article portrayed Hugo Hart as having staged an accident for insurance money when the reporter knew the claim was fabricated. The story was distributed throughout Hart's small town. The portrayal satisfies the standard because a reasonable person would view the false accusation of fraud as highly offensive to personal integrity.
A claims manager flicked a paper clip at the back of Helena Hoffman's neck during a training session, leaving a visible red mark. The act occurred without any stated intent to demean but in front of colleagues. The conduct meets the standard because a reasonable person would regard the uninvited physical contact in a professional setting as offensive to personal dignity.
Members of a group assembled on a public sidewalk near Harriet Hamilton's family funeral and displayed signs accusing the deceased of moral failings. The signs were visible to mourners leaving the service. The demonstration satisfies the standard because a reasonable person would find the targeted personal attacks during a private ceremony highly offensive.
The standard is objective and asks what a reasonable person in the community would find offensive rather than what the particular plaintiff subjectively experienced. Courts therefore examine community norms and context to decide whether the conduct or publication crosses the line.
Yes. Both torts require that the publicized matter or false light be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and both incorporate First Amendment limits when the speech concerns matters of public interest.
Yes when the contact is uninvited, occurs in a power-imbalanced context, and targets a sensitive area of the body. The brief duration does not automatically defeat liability if a reasonable person would still regard the act as offensive to personal dignity.
The standard helps identify outrageous conduct that justifies punishment and deterrence. Conduct meeting the threshold can support punitive damages even when compensatory damages are modest.
…of emotional distress under Maryland law, a plaintiff must show (1) that the defendant intentionally or recklessly engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct; (2) that the conduct was so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency; (3) that the conduct caused the plaintiff to suffer…