Also known as: intentional infliction of emotional distress · IIED
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A tort imposing liability for extreme and outrageous conduct that intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another.
Ivy Ibarra organized a group to stand on a public roadside easement during a military memorial. They displayed signs criticizing government defense policy and one sign naming the deceased pilot. The protest stayed silent and non-disruptive. The pilot's family sued for intentional infliction of emotional harm after seeing the signs from the graveside.
Ike Ingram published a parody advertisement in his magazine depicting a public figure in a fabricated interview confessing to outrageous acts. The piece used obvious exaggeration and satirical framing that no reasonable reader would take as literal fact. The public figure sued for intentional infliction of emotional harm based on the publication.
Hustler Magazine, Inc., a magazine of nationwide circulation, and its publisher Larry Flynt published a parody of a Campari Liqueur advertisement in the November 1983 issue. The parody featured respondent Jerry Falwell and suggested that his first time sampling the liqueur occurred during a drunken incestuous rendezvous with his mother in an outhouse. The parody included a disclaimer in small print that it was an ad parody not to be taken seriously. Falwell filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia seeking damages for libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The District Court directed a verdict against Falwell on the privacy claim. The jury found against respondent on the libel claim but awarded Falwell $100,000 in compensatory damages and $50,000 in punitive damages from each petitioner on the emotional distress claim. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment. The Supreme Court granted certiorari given the importance of the constitutional issues involved.
View caseIngrid Innes supervised a city lifeguard unit and repeatedly subjected female employees to offensive touching and comments. The employees resigned and sued the city for intentional infliction of emotional harm arising from the supervisor's conduct.
Isaiah Ishikawa reported suspected criminal activity by a coworker to his employer. The employer fired him shortly afterward. Ishikawa sued for intentional infliction of emotional harm claiming the termination was retaliatory and caused severe distress.
Irene Ingalls published an article accusing a public official of corruption based on sources the paper knew were unreliable. The official sued for intentional infliction of emotional harm after the story caused him severe distress and reputational damage.
Iain Irons repeatedly followed a public figure and her children in his vehicle, blocked their path, and took intrusive photographs at close range. The public figure sued for intentional infliction of emotional harm arising from the persistent harassment.
Yes. Speech on matters of public concern receives special First Amendment protection even when it causes severe emotional distress. Peaceful, non-disruptive picketing on public land accompanied by offensive signs is protected, and tort liability is barred absent additional unprotected conduct.
No. A public figure cannot recover absent a false statement of fact made with actual malice. Outrageous parody or opinion that no reasonable person would interpret as stating actual facts does not give rise to liability.
The plaintiff must show that the speech falls outside First Amendment protection, such as by proving actual malice for defamation or identifying additional unprotected conduct like true threats.
No. The key factors are whether the speech addresses matters of public concern and occurs in a public forum without independent unprotected conduct. Timing near a funeral does not by itself strip protection.
…affairs, sued petitioner and its publisher, petitioner Larry Flynt, to recover damages for invasion of privacy, libel, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The District Court directed a verdict against respondent on the privacy claim, and submitted the other two claims to a jury. The jury found for petitioners on the defamation claim, but…