Talk:Intentional infliction of emotional distress

small change
Someone put "citation needed" on the part that describes the nature of the legal term "reckless". I removed that, it isn't necessary. That second sentence in that section is literally just re-stating what the word "reckless" means. It doesn't need to be cited; it's basic semantics. If anything, the first two sentences are overly verbose, as the little "elements" list already mentions "intentional OR reckless", and we could just turn those two sentences into something shorter. Been taking paralegal classes, so I know a little something about this stuff. -EdwinAmi — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwinAmi (talk • contribs) 21:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there a seperate definition of extreme and outrageous?
Is there a seperate definition of extreme and outrageous? —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:24.37.254.111 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 18 November 2006

Which states accept this tort? —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:147.226.204.44 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 29 November 2006


 * Please sign comments on talkpages. Legis 13:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That's getting on to what I was about to say. The article is ambiguous on where in the world this law applies. First it talks of English law, then it makes a few references to the US. We need to sort out which jurisdictions define this as a legal wrong in some form or another, and make the article clear about it. Maybe we should use sections for different places' handling of it, as has been done for many things in Wikipedia. There may also be instances where the same or a similar offence is defined by law but not with the same name - we shouldn't forget these. -- Smjg 21:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The law of IIED was developed at the turn of the 20th century, when justices began to look less and less at the various former colonies. It has expanded significantly and independently, and so it can look much different from country to country and even state to state in the US.  The development of this tort is related to the compensation for pain and suffering as you can see from the early English court quotations.  Therein lies the controversy: how do you measure damages?  The terms IIED and NIED are the standard terms taught in all 1st year law schools in the US.  Early English cases are taught because of the influence English law had on the early legal systems of the various colonies.  From reading early Harvard Law Review articles on the subject, I found that American law and English law were highly influential of each other on this subject when it was developing.  The article is very general as it stands; to get more specific is an extensive task.  For instance, in some US states, courts have allowed recovery for former patients who were seduced by their caregiver.  In most if not all US jurisdictions, the tort of seduction has been eliminated; however, courts have allowed a claim of IIED on the basis of both the fiduciary relationship between doctor and patient and the specific psychological phenomenon known as transference (developed by Freud).  Unfortunately, the article is somewhat different from various treatises on the subject, and the lack of quotations makes certain sections dubious at best.  Legis Nuntius 19:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Which country does this apply to?
As someone from the UK it was not clear which country this and other legal articles apply to. Only until I saw "New York" a long way down the page did it become clear that it was about the US. Would it not be sensible to split these articles up into sections: first international law, then similarities and differences between different countries, then the law in country A, then in country B, then country C etc. 80.0.97.19 (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This tort isn't about the U.S. In "Rationale for classification," which I believe may have originally been termed "history" it states, "A change first occurred in the Irish courts which repudiated the English railroad decision."  This obviously does not have much to do with U.S. courts.  The U.S. first adopted the English reasoning of Railways Commissioners v. Coultas 12 A.C. 222(1888) in Lehman v. Brooklyn City Railroad Co. 47 Hun (NY) 355 (1888).  This is in note number 1 of the article.  In a way, the article is already divided in accordance with the structure you suggested.  First, there is no international tort law here.  Private wrongs against the person will follow the domestic laws of the forum state according to international law.  A discussion of the Alien Torts Claims Act in this article would be off topic.  It would have to be included in every tort article on wikipedia.  The article discusses how the tort came into being and its rapid acceptance in Ireland, England, and the U.S.  If you read the contract article, you will see the case Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company.  This is an English case which is taught in Australian, Canadian, English, and American law schools.  It is common for common law countries to study the same cases because we share a common legal tradition.  If a case is from the 19th century or earlier, chances are that it will give a description of the legal rule in more general terms that is applicable to several countries.  Finally, this article discusses how the tort works in specific jurisdictions.  It may be misleading to some for an article to begin by discussing a legal topic as a common law subject, but I think that it is unnecessary to explain that common law topics are common among common law nations. Legis Nuntius (talk) 06:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Court to Hear Va. Suit Seeking Damages in Chihuahua's Death
Washington Post
 * If [Jeffrey Nanni] wins [emotion distress damages], it would be a first in Virginia. State law says that dogs and cats are considered personal property and that owners are "entitled to recover the value" of the pet if the pet is injured or killed. In the past, that has been interpreted to mean the replacement value.

I find this case facinating, but don't know where it would go on wikipedia. It seems to specific for this article, any suggestions? Ikip (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The case has no long-term value unless it is appealed and an appellate court delivers a published decision in writing. The vast majority of cases either settle before trial, or right after verdict, or while on appeal, so very few cases actually make it through the appellate process and in turn enlarge the body of case law. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Remedy
What remedy do courts give to plaintiff who are found to be victims of IIED? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.238.243.11 (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Statute of Limitations on IIED?
I apologize, however, I saw no mention of any statute of limitations on IIED; I did find the article to be otherwise very informative. I have a seven-year-old son with my ex-boyfriend (whom I lived with for 2 & 1/2 years). I discovered my ex was having an affair "off & on" with the girl who cleaned our house once a month (a service I felt was unnecessary, seeing as how I kept our home very tidy--despite having a full-time job as an RN in an Intensive Care Unit, & caring for our infant son almost entirely on my own, as my ex was never at home). I was 6 months pregnant with our son when I received credible confirmation that he was indeed having an affair & confronted him, he neither admitted, nor denied this. I was going to leave him immediately, however, after packing my bags I felt my unborn son kick & realized that I owed it to my child to try to work things out with his father, despite the ongoing indiscretion. Staying with my ex did take it's toll on me--emotionally, & due to the constant stress of worrying about him continuing to see her & being pregnant, after a short time, physically. I became preeclamptic & after being put on bed rest for 2 weeks with no improvement, my OB-GYN induced labor on me, although I was only 34 weeks gestation--our son was born 6 weeks premature on 12/18/2008, weighing 4 lbs. My ex continued their affair "off & on" as it had been for the next 8 months after our son's birth, until finally one day he just decided to ask me to move out so that he could "officially" be with her. Which in all honesty, was a blessing--a year & 1/2 later I met/married my WONDERFUL/supportive husband who is beyond GOOD to myself & our son, we have a daughter together, born in July 2013--she adores her Big Brother ("her Bubba") and he adores her right back. We are truly a happy family. The problem is; for the past 6 years (ever since my ex & I went our separate ways) my ex & his wife (the girl he had the affair with/left me for) make our lives a living hell every chance they get. They have constructed & spread lies/rumors about myself & my husband, they manipulate situations/people (even our own son) to attempt to make my husband & I look bad/wrong/irresponsible, they have kept information from me on several occasions in an attempt to keep me from important events involving our son; my ex & I signed a Parental Agreement outlining a schedule with our son, which does include holidays/birthdays/special occasions--I am expected to & I do follow the agreement (after all, it IS a LEGAL document SIGNED BY A JUDGE), but my ex & his wife follow the agreement IF/when they feel like it. Needless to say it has taken it's toll on my mind & by extension my body. Over the past year & 1/2 I have been diagnosed with Generalized/Social Anxiety Disorder with a Panic Disorder as well, I have high blood pressure; I do not like to leave our home, so I have isolated myself to our home & I spend time only with my husband & our kids--which, don't get me wrong, is perfectly fine with me, but it does bother my husband because I used to be a very outgoing/social person with excellent people skills, now just the thought sometimes of having to go out somewhere where we may run into certain people, will literally cause me to have a panic attack & it's not fair to my husband & kids, however, I am terrified of running the risk of having a panic attack in public (I have actually gone to a program that our son was performing in the last day of Vacation Bible School at church this past summer, I had, unfortunately, had a panic attack while getting ready to leave to go see the program & I cry uncontrollably when having a panic attack, so my eyes were red & swollen & my ex's wife had the nerve to ask me (really was more of an accusation) in front of a large group of people, which, as I'm sure you can imagine, was humiliating--I DID manage to hold back my frustration/anger/just plain hurt feelings until my husband & I were on the way home with both kids before having ANOTHER panic attack. Since March of 2014 my ex's wife has called DSS (the Department of Social Services) four times & made false accusations/allegations against my husband & I. Although they conducted their investigation & found that my husband & I are good/fit/loving/caring/attentive parents with a more than suitable/stable home & excellent relationship with both our son & our daughter, it is still stressful any time you are contacted by a state agency & told that there is someone out there saying awful things that are just plain not true & what's worse is she does it simply & for no other reason than #1: when I do not agree with her or choose to do something the way she would do/does do it & #2 (& probably most importantly): to alienate myself & my husband from our son. When the lead investigator from DSS concluded her investigation after the 3rd report last year, she even told me that what my ex's wife was doing was TEXTBOOK parental alienation & not only had she picked up on it, so had my lawyer, my ex's OWN lawyer & other social workers at DSS. I had hoped then that maybe, just maybe things would change for the better with all of that, but it has just continued on & on!

70.193.35.146 (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)Tara
 * The statute of limitations on IIED will generally be whatever the tort statute of limitations is for the jurisdiction at issue. Every state that has an IIED statute has its own statute of limitations, and usually these are not directed to the specific tort, but to torts in general. bd2412  T 17:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Poor example not sourced
I saw this example "For example, if a defendant refused to inform a plaintiff of the whereabouts of the plaintiff's child for several years, though that defendant knew where the child was the entire time, the defendant could be held liable for IIED even if the defendant had no intent to cause distress to the plaintiff."

An omission isn't an act, so it wouldn't meet the requirements set out prior. Also, no source for this example. KRLA18 (talk) 04:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC)