Potential Claim for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress - Term Paper Example

?Memorandum Partner Associate Fall Re: Walsh - Potential Claim for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress QUESTION PRESENTED In the referred case scenario, an intentional infliction relating to emotional distress was reportedly conducted by William Cranston, who is running an organization named Preserve Youngsville for Retirees (PYR), which affected the victim, Elizabeth Walsh. Assessing the background of the case, it can be viewed that the infliction of emotional distress behavior of Cranston caused severe depression in Walsh’s personal and social life. The case has expressively detailed about the hurdles faced by Walsh during her past life and also represented the present conditions for which, she had planned to stay in Youngsville with her two children. However, due to previous conflicts with her husband, based on domestic abuse, she had to face infliction by Cranston who was her neighbor in Youngsville, wherein Cranston was reported to have an illegitimate claim on the property. As a consequence, the continuous disruptive behavior of Cranston had severely impacted the psychological condition of Walsh causing her emotional distress. In relation to the provisions included under the Public Law, it can be stated that Walsh has a claim against Cranston due to his behavior of intentional infliction, which led her to suffer severe emotional depression. In this case, the continuous emotional distress intentionally caused by Cranston can also be treated as an offense, affecting psychological well-being of Walsh. BRIEF ANSWER TO THE CONCLUSION In relation to the case scenario, the conduct of intentional infliction by Cranston applying various means can be recognized to be guided by the purpose of forcing Walsh to leave the Youngsville community and the property. The case records also reveal that the intentional behavior of Cranston was influenced due to the previous records of Walsh concerning the conflicts with her husband. Consequently, the behavioral misconducts of Cranston further stimulated various depressive circumstances for Walsh to live an independent and healthy life with her two children in Youngsville. In this context, the comportment towards imposing different hurdles in the social perspective also signifies a major offensive activity performed by Cranston can also be deemed as chargeable under the relevant legal statutes as an offensive act. The continuous intentional pressure imposed on Walsh by Cranston, to leave the residing place finally made Walsh to face severe psychological depression. Moreover, using PYR's "official" eviction notices can also be considered as the violation of public law by Cranston, which in turn also calls for an investigation to the justness of his claims as per the relevant statutes of property law. Further investigations of the justness of corporate claims brought by Cranston using the official eviction letter from PYR, it can be justified whether the claimant can force any individual to leave any residing place. In this context, Cranston should procure adequate evidence regarding the illegal residing process of Walsh in that particular community. Additionally, Cranston must need to bear adequate formalities, if he desires to prosecute any legal case against Walsh. In this regard, Walsh can also raise major legal actions against Cranston due to his continuous conduct of intentional infliction practices in order to force her to leave Youngsville. Subsequently, she can adopt adequate legal measures on the grounds of intentional infliction conducted by Cranston, causing her psychological depression and nervous wreck. STATEMENT OF FACTS With regard to the background of the case, the major purpose of Cranston was to form Youngsville community, primarily with retired persons. In order to accomplish the goal of establishing Youngsville community for the retired persons, Cranston has been identified to send “eviction notice” to the families having minor children, who were residing within the particular community. However, it has been identified that Cranston’s PYR was unsuccessfully petitioned by the Youngsville Town Council in order to pass the ordinance, which prohibited families having minor children to reside within the community. Nevertheless, the “eviction notices” had also been recognized to involve no legal effect and they were used to threaten the families residing within the community. In this similar perspective, Walsh had also faced analogous threatening from Cranston by the “eviction notice” when she started living with her two children in the Youngsville community. Walsh had purchased a house in the particular community due to domestic disturbances with her husband and started living across the street from Cranston’s house. Therefore, Cranston had started to intentionally conduct various disturbances in relation to the living of Walsh with her two minor children within the community. The intentional activities performed by Cranston involved various unlawful practices and were highly focused on conducting inflictions with the aim of wiping out Walsh from the particular community. In this context, the case has demonstrated various intentional inflictions conducted by Cranston that are highly focused on repeatedly sending “eviction notices” and intimidating Walsh through making frequent telephone calls. Moreover, the intentional infliction related conducts of Cranston were also continuously threatening Walsh by taking pictures of her house from different angles along with forcing her to stay in home. In several occasions, the infliction activities of Cranston have been identified to create severe psychological disturbances on Walsh and led her to sought medical treatments due to the attack of anxiety. Moreover, the intentional infliction associated behaviors of Cranston were often witnessed to make Walsh afraid to independently live in the Youngsville community with her two minor children. According to the case scenario, the continuous intentional depressive acts conducted by Cranston had severely impacted Walsh’s psychological behavior and compelled her to face traumatic nervous breakdowns. In this regard, the intentional distress related complications made by the defendant can formulate various sorts of physical and psychological disturbances on the plaintiff. With regard to the fact of the case of Walsh and Cranston, a number of unlawful practices have been witnessed including intentional intimidating related acts, which severely impacted on the psychological condition of Walsh. RULE OF THE AGIS V. HOWARD JOHNSON CO. (1976) CASE In relation to the case scenario of Agis v. Howard Johnson Co., 371Mass.140 (1976), it has been recognized that the inflicted activities conducted by a party through extreme and outrageous behaviors without privilege that cause severe emotional distress to other party are subjected to liability even if there exist no bodily harm results. However, the plaintiff under this tort must need to establish four major elements in order to prevail in case of liability. Therefore, the elements must have to show that “The actor intended to inflict emotional distress or that he knew or should have known that emotional distress was the likely result of his conduct” “The conduct was "extreme and outrageous," was "beyond all possible bounds of decency" and was "utterly intolerable in a civilized community," “The actions of the defendant were the cause of the plaintiff's distress” and “The emotional distress sustained by the plaintiff was "severe" and of a nature "that no reasonable man could be expected to endure it" Source: (Commonwealth of Massachusetts, “Debra Agis & another vs. Howard Johnson Company”) With respect to the four elements within the rule of the case Agis v. Howard Johnson Co. (1976), it has been identified that the case of George v. Jordan Marsh Co., 359 Mass. 244 (1971) can be taken into concern in line with the tort against the defendant who had been involved in intentional infliction of emotional distress. In relation to the case of George v. Jordan Marsh Co (1971), a detailed understanding about the imposition of possible physical and psychological impacts on an individual due to intentional infliction by Jordan Marsh (the defendant) can be examined. The case depicts that the intentional actions conducted by the plaintiff may cause severe physical constraints, radically impacting defendants’ psychological conditions. In George v. Jordan Marsh Co (1971), the defendant, Jordan Marsh Company (in the first court and employees of Jordan Marsh in the second and third courts) was reported to practice various unlawful and emotional distress acts in order to collect debt amount from the plaintiff’s emancipated son. The dunning tactics made by the company resulted in causing heart attack to the plaintiff, Irenee George. Therefore, the court has been decided to consider the case of George v. Jordan Marsh Co (1971) under the common-law tort, as the plaintiff was physically harmed due to the distress and the dunning tactics of the defendant. In relation to the case of George v. Jordan Marsh Co (1971), it can also be observed that the intentional debt collection practices of the defendant have severely impacted the physiological conditions of the plaintiff. Nevertheless, there are certain contradictory opinions identifiable in this regard, which should be considered by Walsh before opting for a legal action against Cranston. In this regard, the aforesaid elements associated with the case of Agis v. Howard Johnson Co., 371Mass.140 (1976) have provided major support to the plaintiff who can also claim for taking adequate measures, even if the bodily harm does not appear due to intentional inflictions. In a similar case of Agis v. Howard Johnson Co., 371Mass.140 (1976), the facts expressively denote that the intentional practice of distressing any party, without causing any physical harm cannot be duly considered as an outrageous act performed by the other party. From a critical point of view, it can be argued that the case example of Agis v. Howard Johnson Co.140 (1976) presents an entirely reversed scenario to the context reflected in the case of George v. Jordan Marsh Co (1971). In this case, Howard Johnson Company and Roger Dionne, the manager of the restaurant (the defendants), were accused by the plaintiff, Debra Agis. The plaintiff alleged that intentional infliction regarding severe emotional distress caused her husband to lose his service, love and companionship with his wife causing severe psychological pressure. In relation to such type of an event, arguments associated with the cases of intentional infliction of emotional distress are often regarded as a fraudulent claim, if the infliction associated acts of the offender do not cause any physical injury to the victim. However, the elements associated with the rule of the case have represented adequate measures in order to provide ample support to the plaintiff, for prevailing liability in lieu of the intentional infliction acts performed by the defendant. In accordance with the case of Agis v. Howard Johnson Co. (1976), opinions of the court summarized that the cause of action through intentional infliction relating to emotional distress does not involve any fraudulent claim, even the person is not physically or bodily harmed. In the similar perspective, the case of Boyle v. Wenk (1979) revealed that damage of mental suffering and emotional distress due to intentional or reckless infliction is associated with psychological distress. According to the case, it has been recognized that an intentional infliction linked with emotional distress acts were performed by the defendant (Wenk) against the plaintiff i.e. Boyle. The defendant was accused of conducting various sorts of outrageous acts, resulting in severe conditions of psychological depression suffered by the plaintiff. The background of this particular case expressively details about the damage of mental suffering along with severe emotional distress, which was caused primarily due to the reckless or the intentional infliction acts performed by the defendant. With respect to the claims made by the plaintiff i.e. Boyle, the defendant Wenk was accused for his misconduct in the form of outrageous and continuous infliction, which resulted in causing severe physical and psychological distress. DISCUSSION RULE OR APPLICATION (CREAC) In order to bring significant insights of the memo, the discussion of the report will comply with a CREAC (Conclusion, Rule, Explanation of the Rules, Analysis and Conclusion) model. Conclusion In relation to the proposed case scenario, Walsh possesses the right to file a lawsuit against Cranston under the grounds of intentional infliction of emotional distress. It is worth mentioning that the continuous dunning tactics along with premeditated unlawful acts of Cranston can be considered to negatively influence the psychological and physical conditions of Walsh. With regard to the possible health and psychological issues, it can be stated that Walsh can also protect herself from facing various outrageous acts performed by Cranston through the enforcement of relevant lawsuits as per the grounds of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Rule In relation to the case scenario along with obtained brief summary about the decisions of various similar cases, it has been identified that the rules underneath the intentional infliction of emotional distress can be taken under the common law-tort. However, the regulations mentioned as per the respective law involves adequate provisions that are first required to be sufficed, considering any individual party to be treated as an offender. In this context, if the plaintiff claims to face physical damage with sufficient evidence due to the intentional infliction of emotional distress acts, the other party is likely to be convicted and penalized in accordance with the regulatory norms. For instance, the cases of George v. Jordan Marsh Co., 359 Mass. 244 (1971) and Boyle v. Wenk, 378 Mass. 592 (1979) clearly denote the rules associated with the common law tort, which might be imposed due to the outrageous or extreme conduct of intentional infliction of emotional distress related acts. Explanation of the Rule With due consideration to the concept of intentional infliction of emotional distress, it can be considered under the common law tort that if Walsh has suffered any physical or psychological damage due to the extreme and outrageous behavior by the defendant, she will have a complete right to sue Cranston. In relation to the fundamental elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress, there are certain conditions including that (1) the acts of the defendant must involve reckless or intentional, (2) the conducts must be outrageous or extreme and (3) the plaintiff must possess adequate evidence to prove severe emotional distress or physical harm suffered due to the misconduct of the offender. With reference to the illustrated cases, viz., that of George v. Jordan Marsh Co., 359 Mass. 244 (1971), Boyle v. Wenk, 378 Mass. 592 (1979) and Agis v. Howard Johnson Co., 371Mass.140 (1976), these mentioned statutes can be evidently justified. Analysis With regard to the major findings in the case of George v. Jordan Marsh Co (1971) and Agis v. Howard Johnson Co. (1976), it can be affirmed that both the cases provided dissimilar opinions with respect to the claim of intentional infliction concerning emotional distress. In this regard, the case example of George v. Jordan Marsh Co (1971) has demonstrated a clear representation regarding the intentional infliction linked with emotional distress with bodily harm. In relation to the summary of the case, the declaration contains three counts of opinions, wherein each count of the declaration alleged that Jordan Marsh had sold goods on credit to the emancipated son of the plaintiff, which further led the grounds of intentional infliction of emotional distress by the defendant. These misconducts of the defendant resulted in severe emotional distress to the plaintiff causing a heart attack. From a critical point of view, it can be thus affirmed that the plaintiff in this case had to suffer both psychological and physical harm, which legitimated his right to sue the defendant and obtain a judgment in favor. Additionally, the elements underneath the rule of the case Agis v. Howard Johnson Co., 371Mass.140 (1976) can also be considered as a set of effective judgment through which the plaintiff can also prevail in case of claiming liability for the intentional infliction of emotional distress related conducts with no bodily harm. From an in-depth understanding, it can further be argued with reference to both the aforesaid cases that high chances of obtaining a favorable judgment by Walsh can be considered under the ground of common-law tort due to severe nervous wreck and anxiety attacks that led her to seek medical treatments. On the contrary, Walsh’s past record of experiencing mental pressures in the form of abuses in her married life is likely to be raised by the opponent to justify that her psychological ill-health was a consequence of the issues related to her divorce rather than being caused by Cranston’s behavioral misconduct of intended infliction. Consequently, if proved, the judgment may be in favor of the defendant and against Walsh. Conclusion With reference to the verdicts identified within the cases exemplified above, it can be recognized that the notion of “extreme and outrageous” intentional infliction relating to emotional distress in collecting personal debt is legitimately deemed to be considered under the common-law tort. In this regard, the case of George v. Jordan Marsh Co., 359 Mass. 244 (1971) and Boyle v. Wenk, 378 Mass. 592 (1979) has expressively defined about the intentional infliction, wherein the plaintiff needs to prove that he/she was physically harmed by the defendant’s intentional activities. Undoubtedly, the elements associated with the rule of Agis v. Howard Johnson Co., 371Mass.140 (1976) case can turn to be the major attributes in accordance with the case scenario of Walsh, wherein she possesses complete right to bring legal charges against Cranston. However, irrespective of the mentioned ground of psychological or physical harm, Walsh can aim to prove that the property claim made by Cranston on behalf of his organization PYC is illegitimate and hence, obtain due compensation to the damages she had to suffer. Work Cited “Debra Agis & another vs. Howard Johnson Company.” Commonwealth of Massachusetts. n.d. Web. 07 Nov. 2013. Read More