/UT-er-lee in-TOL-uh-ruh-bul in uh si-vuh-LIZED kuh-MYOO-ni-tee/·phrase
Also known as:extreme and outrageous
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An extreme and outrageous conduct standard that exceeds all possible bounds of decency and is regarded as atrocious. The standard requires conduct so far outside tolerable behavior that it produces severe emotional distress in the target or certain bystanders.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
3
Supervisor's Repeated Threats
Harlan, a farm cooperative supervisor, repeatedly told migrant worker Vargas during shifts that he would report her family to immigration authorities for deportation if she refused his sexual demands. He described detention conditions in graphic detail in front of laughing coworkers. Vargas suffered chronic nightmares and fainting spells. A court applying the standard finds the conduct qualifies because it exploited her economic dependence and family safety in a sustained public manner.
Public Funeral Protest
Members of a church group picketed a soldier's funeral with signs accusing the family of raising a homosexual and blaming national tragedies on the military. The father witnessed the protest while burying his son. The court holds that the speech, though protected, does not meet the standard because it addressed matters of public concern rather than targeting the family with conduct beyond all decency.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Restatements
Casebooks
Snyder v. Phelps562 U.S. 443 (2011)
Bystander Distress Claim
A driver struck and killed a child while the mother watched from across the street. The mother suffered severe emotional trauma. The court applies the standard to determine whether the driver's conduct was so extreme that liability extends to the mother's distress even without physical impact on her.
What conduct satisfies the standard for extreme and outrageous behavior?+
Conduct must go beyond all possible bounds of decency and be regarded as atrocious. Mere insults, indignities, or petty oppressions do not qualify. Courts examine whether the actor abused a position of power, targeted a vulnerable plaintiff, or acted repeatedly in public view.
Supporting sources
Does the standard require bodily harm for recovery?+
No. Severe emotional distress alone supports liability when the conduct is extreme and outrageous. Bodily harm extends recovery but is not required for the primary claim.
Supporting sources
How does the standard apply when conduct targets a third person?+
Liability reaches an immediate family member present at the scene who suffers severe emotional distress. A non-family bystander present at the time may recover only if the distress produces bodily harm.
Supporting sources
Is a single false statement enough to meet the standard?+
A single lie is usually insufficient unless it exploits a special relationship such as doctor-patient and is delivered graphically with intent to frighten. Sustained campaigns or public humiliation more readily satisfy the threshold.
Supporting sources
What role does the plaintiff's vulnerability play?+
Exploiting known economic dependence, immigration status, or family safety heightens the outrageous character of the conduct. Courts weigh the power imbalance between the parties.
Supporting sources
562 U.S. 443 (2011)Torts
…in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.” Post , at 2–3 (opinion of ALITO, J.) (quoting Harris v. Jones , 281 Md. 560, 567, 571, 380 A. 2d 611, 614, 616 (1977); internal quotation marks omitted). The dissent requires us to ask…