Harris Case Brief (intentional emotional distress) PDF

Title Harris Case Brief (intentional emotional distress)
Course Tort Law
Institution Touro College
Pages 2
File Size 77.5 KB
File Type PDF
Total Downloads 105
Total Views 177

Summary

2020 Torts Law I Case Brief - Harris Case (Intentional emotional distress lecture)...


Description

Harris v. Jones Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1977 281 Md. 560, 380 A.2d 611.

FACTS Parties: Plaintiff: Harris, Appellant Defendant: Jones, Appellee Procedural History: o

The jury awarded Harris $3,500 compensatory damages and $15,000 punitive damages against both Jones and GM. The Court of Special Appeals reversed the decision.

Relevant Facts: o o o

Plaintiff sued his place of work and a supervisor for intentional infliction of emotional distress The plaintiff had a stutter his whole life and the supervisor knew this yet constantly ridiculed him and made fun of it The court found that the plaintiff had to prove the supervisor was intentional or reckless, and either extreme or outrageous o 4 elements to constitute liability on pg. 60  Intentional or reckless, extreme or outrageous, a causal connection bt the wrongful conduct and emotional distress, emotional stress must be severe

o Basis for Dispute: ISSUE: Whether the actions of the defendant meet the four requirements for infliction of emotional distress to qualify as a tort? PARTIES’ ARGUEMENTS: Plaintiff: Defendant: says the cruelty was not severe enough to constitute severe emotional distress HOLDING: The decision of the court of appeals was confirmed DISPOSITION OF THE COURT: o o o

Although the defendants conduct was intentional the plaintiff could not prove that the emotional distress suffered was severe Evidence was vague and weak and didn’t indicate severity or a long time of distress No other points (whether proved or not in the 4 elements required) mattered because those could not be proved

RULE OF LAW: o

o

4 elements to constitute liability on pg. 60  Intentional or reckless, extreme or outrageous, a causal connection between the wrongful conduct and emotional distress, emotional stress must be severe Pg. 60- “the comment goes on to state that liability does not extend, however: “to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities””...


Similar Free PDFs