NIED - Satz PDF

Preview

Summary

Satz...

Description

Satz Law 550 11/6/20 Wilkinson v Downtown Nickerson v Hodges Dickens v Puryear  If these threats happened over the phone, we would not have a tort.  Assault and battery case dressed up as IIED case in order to avoid statute of limitations  If Puryear hadn’t said anything after the beating, there would be no IIED. It was the “Pack your bags, tear your phone out of the wall, etc.” that did it. Littlefield v McGuffey  Damages for federal civil rights violations and intentional infliction of emotional distress sustained when evidence supports liability and damages reasonably relate to the evidence and comparable cases  A claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) does not require proof that the emotional distress manifested itself physically Hunt v State  Hunt had to establish claim that he was deprived of a federal right, Pritchett was acting under the color of state law at the time of Hunt’s detainment and questioning, and is not protected by qualified immunity  Battery? Dispute, but court says no  Big consideration: is the person able to function normally?  He must intend to cause the harm, but it doesn’t have to manifest in physical way. Nature of interrogation shows he meant to cause emotional distress.  Defenses: difficult to defend, although the defenses technically do apply. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Take-Away Points (NIED)  Generally no duty to take care to avoid causing emotional distress to another. NIED is an exception!  Tests o Impact: recovery for ED if there’s a physical impact o Expanded Impact: recovery if physical harm results from ED even if no physical impact

o Zone of danger: recovery if no impact, but in zone in which physical injury was threatened and fear for safety o Bystander: ability to bring a claim as a bystander who experiences ED, with a much higher bar to establish (covered separately) Wyman v Leavitt  Claim 1: property damage Claim 2: anxiety suffered, fear for her and child’s safety  Damages are not recoverable in a negligence action where the victim’s harm is constituted solely by mental suffering. Robb v Pennsylvania Railroad Co  Zone of danger rule: needs to be (1) in the immediate area of physical danger, (2) endangerment itself has to cause the distress, and a (3) physical manifestation of distress Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Gottshall  Consolidated cases  Gottshall post-traumatic stress after coworker died of heart attack, negative and stressful, extreme working conditions. Gottshall was in same environment as the person who died. Remanded under zone of danger because immediate risk of physical harm:  Carlyle sued over oppressive environment. Insomnia, headache, depression, weight loss – not handling new job well - doesn’t fit the zone of danger bill.  Possible IIED claim under recklessness standard  Upon remand, cannot satisfy zone of danger test prescribed by Supreme Court

2...