Harris
v. Jones
Court
of Appeals of
281
Prosser,
p. 54-57
Facts: Harris was teased by Jones
for his stuttering. Harris claimed that
the teasing worsened the condition and caused him emotional distress. The jury found for the plaintiff, but was
overruled in the Court of Special Appeals.
The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals of
Issue: Was the emotional distress
suffered by the plaintiff “severe”?
Rule: An action for intentional
infliction of mental distress must contain four elements: (1) intentional or
reckless conduct, (2) extreme and outrageous conduct, (3) a causal connection
between the conduct and the distress, (4) distress that can be considered severe.
Analysis: The court argues that in
deciding whether the distress was severe, the situation can’t be studied in a
vacuum. Because the plaintiff had
problems that preceded his employment and the place of employment was kind of a
rough place, there hadn’t been enough evidence introduced that the distress
could be considered severe.
Conclusion:
The court affirmed
the reversal of the Court of Special Appeals.
Notes
and Questions
1.
What constitutes extreme conduct? Sexual propositions apparently do not.
2.
Courts are reluctant to intervene in family disputes
except in extreme situations.
3.
It seems filing a lawsuit cannot be held to be
extreme behavior. However, it looks like
courts themselves can be seen to go overboard in punishing jurors for contempt.
4.
The workplace is becoming more and more regulated
and more and more subject to the power of the courts.
5.
If the plaintiff was mistaken as to whether there
was any risk of infection, then we could decide that his own ignorance is his
own fault.
6.
Let’s find the common thread, if there is one.
A. This dealt
with a business relationship.
B. Here the defendant
is misrepresenting himself and scaring the plaintiff for personal gain.
C. Here it doesn’t
seem as though the defendants gained anything, unless they were trying to
entertain themselves (perhaps in a prurient way).
D. In carrying
out normal business, you can’t be outrageous.
Here, they talk about bill collectors
E. Here they talk
about insurance adjusters.
F. It doesn’t
seem like these cases have much in common at all.
7.
We take into account the plaintiff’s sensibilities
when deciding if behavior is outrageous or if their distress is severe.
8.
The courts seem to recognize that people are particularly
sensitive about religion and race, and are more likely to allow a cause of action
for racial or religious insults.
9.
Pregnant women are presumably especially physically
sensitive, so behavior that would not be outrageous otherwise may be outrageous
when directed at a pregnant woman.
10. If you’re
physically sensitive in any way, behavior that might otherwise be uncalled for
but not outrageous ends up going beyond reasonable bounds.
11. I think people
should be sensitive to the idiosyncrasies of others. It should be considered outrageous to
humiliate someone based on the exploitation of a particular idiosyncrasy.