Also known as: intentional infliction of emotional distress · IIED · emotional distress tort
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A tort imposing liability when a defendant intentionally or recklessly engages in extreme and outrageous conduct that causes the plaintiff severe emotional distress. The conduct must exceed all bounds of decency and be regarded as intolerable in a civilized community. Liability may be barred by constitutional protections when the conduct consists of protected speech on matters of public concern.
Members of a church group picket a military funeral on public land with signs expressing political and moral opposition to government policy on homosexuality in the armed forces. The signs are visible but the picketing remains peaceful and non-disruptive. Family members later sue the group for intentional infliction of mental distress. The claim fails because the speech addresses matters of public concern and receives First Amendment protection.
An employee at a data processing firm is terminated after reporting suspected illegal activity by a supervisor. The employee sues for intentional infliction of mental distress arising from the discharge and surrounding statements. The court examines whether the employer's conduct meets the threshold for outrageousness required for the tort.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A photographer repeatedly follows a public figure and her children in public spaces, taking photographs at close range despite requests to stop. The family sues the photographer for intentional infliction of mental distress. The court considers whether the persistent conduct rises to the level of extreme and outrageous behavior that supports liability.
A landlord refuses to rent an apartment to a prospective tenant because of race and makes derogatory remarks during the encounter. The tenant sues for intentional infliction of mental distress along with other claims. The court determines whether the plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial on the emotional distress allegations.
An insurer denies a valid claim and engages in a pattern of delay and misrepresentation that causes the policyholder prolonged financial and emotional strain. The policyholder sues for intentional infliction of mental distress. The court reviews whether the insurer's conduct justifies an award of punitive damages in addition to compensatory relief.
A shipping company engages in reckless operational decisions that result in a massive oil spill harming coastal communities. Affected residents sue the company for intentional infliction of mental distress caused by the environmental and economic devastation. The court evaluates the ratio of punitive damages to compensatory awards under applicable constitutional standards.
The defendant's conduct must be extreme and outrageous, exceeding all bounds of decency and regarded as intolerable in a civilized community. Mere insults or annoyances are insufficient.
Yes. Speech on matters of public concern receives special protection even when it causes severe emotional distress. Peaceful picketing accompanied by offensive signs on public land is protected and tort liability is barred absent additional unprotected conduct.
Recovery requires 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.
No. The plaintiff must prove actual severe emotional distress. Damages are not presumed as they are in certain defamation contexts.
…have all involved awards subject in the first instance to state law. See, e.g. , id. , at 414, 123 S. Ct. 1513 (fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress under Utah law); Gore, supra , at 563, and n. 3, 116 S. Ct. 1589 (fraud under Alabama law); TXO, supra , at 452, 113 S. Ct. 2711 (plurality opinion) (slander of title under West Virginia…