Torts
Class Notes
Last
time, we talked about false imprisonment. We added a couple of cases where false
imprisonment could lie, for example, in Whittaker,
where the plaintiff was fraudulently induced to count on the defendant, and
thus the defendant had a duty to let her off the ship.
However,
if you didn’t put the person in the position where they are imprisoned, you do
not have the duty to let them out.
Neither
mistake nor insanity negates intent.
If we have the choice
between making the innocent injured person and the injurer pay, we want the
injurer to pay.
In general, the insane do
not get very good treatment if they commit a tort.
Intentional infliction of
mental distress
Restatement
(Second) of Torts §46 is an authority on this tort.
Recall
the elements of the tort:
1. Intentional or
reckless
2. Severe
emotional distress
3. Extreme and
outrageous
4. Actual damages
5. No transferred
intent
6. Effects on
third parties
Siliznoff continued
Siliznoff
tries to argue for assault, but there are only threats of future injury.
Why
does the court say it is a good idea to have an intentional infliction of
mental distress claim?
On
the other hand, why do others think it’s a bad idea to recognize this tort?
Why
can’t Siliznoff win on false imprisonment?
Some
courts require a plaintiff to demonstrate physical manifestations of their
mental injury. This is a hard causal
connection to make.
Slocum v. Food Fair Stores of
Florida
Slocum
was insulted by an employee of the defendant.
Her claim is dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. She appeals, and the appeal is upheld. The Supreme Court of Florida decides not to
make new law here.
Slocum
claims the insult caused her to have a heart attack and it aggravated her
pre-existing heart disease.
The
court says an objective standard should be applied rather than a subjective
standard: how would a person of ordinary sensitivity react to this conduct?
An objective
standard is useful for preventing a slippery slope or fraudulent claims.
What
if the defendant had pushed the plaintiff away while insulting her? The defendant would be liable for battery. What if the defendant just grabbed her
shopping cart? By the extended
personality doctrine, you would still probably be able to recover for battery. If she did, would she get damages for her
mental distress?
Intentional
infliction of mental distress has a higher standard of proof than other
intentional torts.
When
you are found liable for an intentional tort, you can recover for all the damages,
even the ones the defendant didn’t expect to occur. Emotional distress that’s part of another
intentional tort is easier to prove.
Why
didn’t the woman in
There
is a higher standard of care expected for a common carrier.
Intentional
infliction of mental distress is very likely if you use a racial epithet.
Picking
on an immutable characteristic of a person makes it more likely that your
insult will be held to be intentional infliction of mental distress.
What
happened to Harris? He worked at GM and
he was harassed repeatedly by his supervisor.
He has a stuttering problem for which his supervisor ridiculed him.
What
is the defendant’s side of the issue? It
was a rough environment.
What
did the plaintiff’s lawyer fail to do?
There was no evidence presented that the stuttering problem was made
worse by the harassment. The court said
you could recover for intentional infliction of mental distress if you prove that
your problem was made worse.
The
plaintiff didn’t manage the case well.
Exploitation
of a known sensitivity usually leads to a better chance of proving intentional
infliction of mental distress.
If
two people have unequal power in a relationship, intentional infliction of
mental distress is more likely to lie if the more powerful person insults the
less powerful person.
Be
wary of the tort of intentional infliction of mental distress in the employment
setting.
Extended
victimization of an individual for immutable characteristics is
problematic. Harris had a lot going for
him, but had a bad lawyer.
Things
that make intentional infliction of mental distress more likely to lie:
A hypothetical
Defendants
tell the plaintiff that her husband stole a car and tell her that they are
going to call the people. The defendants
know that she has emotional problems.
She stands there scratching her face.
Is this a good case for intentional infliction of mental distress or
not? Why are the defendants telling her
this? The defendants are trying to make
her feel bad. Is this outrageous
conduct?
The
court found that her emotional distress was not great, but they found that the conduct
was outrageous. It had a lot to do with
the defendants’ knowledge of the plaintiff’s sensitivities. The tirade also lasted a long time.
Continued,
repetitive harassment matters.
Pregnant
women and women generally get special protection. This could be seen as sexist.
Abuse
of power and exploitation of known sensitivities make a finding of intentional
infliction of mental distress more likely.
Next
time, we will continue with Taylor.