Also known as: intentional interference with the peace of mind · IIED · intentional infliction of emotional distress
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 be such that a reasonable person would regard it as exceeding all bounds of decency. Liability extends to resulting bodily harm when the distress foreseeably produces physical illness.
Hazel coordinated members of Federal Space to stand on a public roadside easement two hundred feet from an air base memorial service. They held signs criticizing government military spending and one sign blaming the deceased pilot for lethal technology. Jill collapsed from anxiety after seeing the signs. The First Amendment bars her intentional interference with peace of mind claim because the peaceful picketing addressed matters of public concern.
Imran Iyer repeatedly berated his subordinate Isaac Irving in front of coworkers about a bookkeeping error he knew was not theft. Isaac suffered fainting and recurring anxiety attacks. The conduct meets the elements for intentional interference with peace of mind because it was intentional, unreasonable, and foreseeably likely to cause illness.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Luis repeatedly warned his elderly father Miguel that his brother would abandon him and the bank would seize the farm. Miguel suffered escalating panic attacks culminating in a stress-induced stroke. Luis is liable for intentional interference with peace of mind because he intentionally inflicted severe distress he should have recognized as likely to produce bodily harm.
Valley Stream aired a sketch comedy segment featuring an actor in exaggerated costume confessing to bribery on behalf of Governor Benjamin. Benjamin claimed severe emotional distress after some viewers took the parody as fact. The network faces no liability for intentional interference with peace of mind because the satirical speech on a public figure did not satisfy the actual malice standard.
An officer grabbed Imani Idowu during an arrest and used force that caused lasting anxiety. Imani sued for intentional interference with peace of mind. The claim fails because the proper standard evaluates the force under objective reasonableness rather than the tort's extreme and outrageous element.
A photographer followed Ingrid Innes relentlessly, blocking her path and shouting questions at close range. Ingrid suffered severe emotional distress requiring medical treatment. The photographer is liable for intentional interference with peace of mind because the persistent harassment constituted extreme and outrageous conduct directed at the plaintiff.
The plaintiff must show that the defendant intentionally or recklessly engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct. That conduct must cause severe emotional distress. When the distress foreseeably produces physical illness, the defendant is liable for the resulting bodily harm.
Yes. Peaceful picketing on public land accompanied by offensive signs addressing matters of public concern receives First Amendment protection. Tort liability for intentional interference with peace of mind is barred absent additional unprotected conduct such as fighting words or true threats.
No. It is enough that the defendant intentionally subjects the plaintiff to emotional distress that he should recognize as likely to result in illness. The resulting bodily harm is compensable even if the defendant did not desire the physical injury itself.
…Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, 106 Stat. 73, note following 28 U.S.C. §1350, as well as claims for wrongful death and intentional infliction of emotional distress under the laws of California and Argentina. The incidents recounted in the complaint center on MB Argentina’s plant in Gonzalez Catan, Argentina; no part of MB Argentina’s alleged…