Also known as: wounded feeling · hurt feelings · emotional distress
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
Damages compensating emotional injuries that arise from insults, indignity, or humiliation. These damages are distinguished from compensation for mental pain and suffering that accompanies physical injury.
Wallace Webb repeatedly mocked Willow Walker in front of coworkers about a deeply personal family matter using vulgar language and false accusations. The targeted humiliation caused Willow to suffer severe anxiety and insomnia requiring medical treatment. A court holds Wallace liable for the resulting emotional distress because the conduct was extreme and outrageous.
Wade Watson and his group picketed peacefully near a military funeral with signs expressing political and moral views on government policy. Wesley Wong, a family member attending the funeral, suffered severe emotional distress from the offensive messages. A court dismisses the emotional distress claim because the speech addressed matters of public concern and received First Amendment protection.
Warren Woods directed extreme and outrageous insults at his employee during a meeting. Willa Whitman, the employee's spouse present at the time, witnessed the conduct and suffered severe emotional distress. A court permits Willa to recover damages for her wounded feelings under the rule governing conduct directed at a third person.
Woodridge Manufacturing's supervisor swung a tool near an employee's head to intimidate her but made no contact. The employee experienced only anxiety and insomnia with no bodily injury or other invasion of protected interests. A court denies recovery for the resulting wounded feelings because emotional distress standing alone does not support liability.
Whitestone Bank negligently injured Willow Walker in a transaction involving her property. Willow incurred medical expenses and also suffered emotional distress from the invasion. A court awards damages that encompass both bodily harm and the emotional distress component under the governing measure of recovery.
Westmont Healthcare published a false statement about Wallace Webb that damaged his reputation. Wallace experienced humiliation and wounded feelings even without proof of special damages. A court permits recovery for those emotional injuries as part of presumed damages in the defamation action.
In 1968, Chicago police officer Richard Nuccio shot and killed a youth named Nelson. State authorities prosecuted Nuccio and obtained a conviction for second-degree murder. The Nelson family retained petitioner Elmer Gertz, a Chicago attorney, to represent them in civil litigation against Nuccio. Respondent Robert Welch, Inc., publishes American Opinion, a monthly magazine expressing the views of the John Birch Society. In March 1969, the magazine published an article titled "FRAME-UP: Richard Nuccio And The War On Police." The article accused Gertz of participating in a Communist conspiracy to discredit local law enforcement, described him as a "Leninist" and "Communist-fronter," and claimed he had been an officer of the National Lawyers Guild, which it portrayed as a Communist organization involved in planning attacks on Chicago police during the 1968 Democratic Convention. The article contained numerous inaccuracies, including the false implication that Gertz had a criminal record. Gertz had served as an officer of the National Lawyers Guild approximately fifteen years earlier but had no involvement in planning the 1968 demonstrations. He had never been a member of the Marxist League for Industrial Democracy or the Intercollegiate Socialist Society. The managing editor of American Opinion made no effort to verify the charges against Gertz before publication and appended an editorial introduction stating that the author had conducted extensive research. Gertz filed a diversity action for libel in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The district court ruled that the statements constituted libel per se under Illinois law. After a trial, the jury awarded Gertz $50,000 in compensatory damages. The district court later entered judgment for the defendant notwithstanding the verdict, applying the New York Times standard. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the application of constitutional standards to defamation of a private individual.
Damages for wounded feelings are recoverable when extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress. Recovery is also available when the conduct invades another protected interest such as in defamation or assault. The harm must be distinct from mental suffering that flows from physical injury.
…to reputation was presumed and damages could be awarded by the jury, along with any special damages such as pecuniary loss and emotional distress. At the very least, the rule allowed the recovery of nominal damages for any defamatory publication actionable per se and thus performed "a vindicatory function by enabling the…
…severe injuries she received when she sliced her finger on a tuna can. Her family joined in the suit, seeking damages for emotional distress and certain medical expenses. The District Court granted summary judgment to Star-Kist, finding that none of the plaintiffs met the minimum amount-in-controversy requirement. The Court of…
…in others’ reaches protected expression by permitting ‘the municipality to censure offenders for speech that causes only hurt feelings, offense, or resentment.’” In re Welfare of R.A.V. , 464 N.W.2d 507, 510 (1991). Held: The ordinance is facially invalid under the First Amendment. Majority opinion Opinion of…
…to the performance component, the record shows that respondent's counsel made a strategic choice to argue for the extreme emotional distress mitigating circumstance and to rely as fully as possible on respondent's acceptance of responsibility for his crimes. Although counsel understandably felt hopeless about respondent's…
…no direct challenge to this aspect of Mullaney . In upholding a New York law allowing defendants to raise and prove extreme emotional distress as an affirmative defense to murder, Patterson made clear that the state law still required the State to prove every element of that State's offense of murder and its accompanying…
Wounded feelings arise specifically from insults, indignity, or humiliation. Ordinary pain and suffering refers to mental distress that accompanies physical injury. The distinction prevents recovery for standalone emotional upset unless an independent tort such as intentional infliction of emotional distress is established.
Speech on matters of public concern receives special protection even when it causes severe emotional distress. Peaceful picketing with offensive signs near a funeral is protected and tort liability is barred absent additional unprotected conduct. A false statement of fact made with actual malice can still support liability.
A bystander who is a member of the immediate family and present at the time may recover when the actor intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress by conduct directed at a third person. Recovery for other bystanders requires that the distress result in bodily harm.
Damages for emotional disturbance are not ordinarily allowed in contract even when foreseeable. Recovery is permitted when the disturbance accompanies bodily injury or when the contract or breach is of a kind that serious emotional disturbance was a particularly likely result such as contracts for the proper disposition of dead bodies.