Memorandum. The intentional infliction of emotional distress case study - Assignment Example

Memorandum Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Marble District Courts Junior Associate Peter Bernard 17 June Re: Whether Mr. Crane’s Conduct satisfies The “Extreme and Outrageous” Element Synthesis Extreme and outrageous conduct is one of the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress rule. The conduct is considered extreme and outrageous if it causes severe emotional distress to the well-being of the victim. From the cases discussed, the rule has been used to prove if the defendant’s conduct was extreme and outrageous. However, the courts have given different conclusions based on the rule. In one of the case, the court found the behavior of the defendant as extreme and outrageous while in another case, there was insufficient evidence to prove such behavior. It is important to note that in both cases, the defendants were executing their duties. Question Presented The relevant law to be used in this case is the intentional infliction of emotional distress. In this case, it will be determined whether Mr. Crane should be charged for intentional infliction of emotional distress on Ms. Jeffers. The case has not been filed but it is probable that Ms. Jeffers will sue Mr. Crane for intentional infliction of emotional distress, particularly, his conduct was extreme and outrageous. The law states for the conduct to be extreme and outrageous, the distress must be able to affect the functionality of the plaintiff’s professional or personal life. Several cases have used the law and different interpretations have been given on the outcome of the cases. The cases to be applied in this context include Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, Inc. v. Odilia Franco, Mattix-Hill v. Reck, Twyman v. Twyman, and GTE Southwest Inc. v. Bruce cases. Brief Answer Mr. Crane’s conduct is probably not extreme and outrageous. This is because the law states that for a conduct to be regarded as extreme and outrageous, the distress is supposed to have a significant impact on the plaintiff’s professional and personal life. Mr. Crane acted out of goodwill and Ms. Jeffers interfered with the conversation between him and Christy. According to the cases discussed, it is evident that prove must be given to indicate that the defendant’s conduct was extreme and outrageous. The law states that for the defendant’s conduct to be regarded extreme and outrageous, it must be outrageous in character and extreme such that it is beyond the degree of decency. The extreme and outrageous behavior may arise from abuse of the individual or from the significant authority given to defendant (or the power he or she possesses) over the other such that he can influence his or her interests. Fact Statement The probable defendant is David Crane, a gymnastics coach at Jack Be Nimble Gymnastics and the studio. The probable plaintiff is Ms. Jeffers, a former parent of a student who was on practice at the studio. The probable defendant (Mr. Crane) believes that the probable plaintiff (Ms. Jeffers) will sue him and the studio for remarks he made to his student (Christy Jeffers) after a practice. Mr. Crane told Christy that if she thought of excelling in Olympic gymnastics competitions, she must improve her performance. This is because her current performance could not allow to become an excellent Olympic gymnastics material. However, her parent totally disagreed with what the coach said, consequently, an intense argument between the coach and the parent ensued. The coach believes that Ms. Jeffers will file suit against him and the studio for those remarks. From this scenario, Mr. Crane might be sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress. However, it is not clearly known if Ms. Jeffers suffered emotional distress from the remarks made by Mr. Crane. Only side of the story is known, and it is not clear if the course of the case will be changed. However, according to Mr. Crane, Ms. Jeffers started the argument and he told her the facts about her daughter’s performance. Despite the fact that Ms. Jeffers’ version of the incident is not clearly known. It is probable that Mr. Crane will be sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Mr. Crane’s conduct is probably not extreme and outrageous based on the statements given. Discussion Thesis The thesis statement is whether Mr. Crane’s conduct satisfies the “extreme and outrageous” element, which is governed by the rule of intentional infliction of emotional distress. The overall conclusion is that Mr. Crane’s conduct does not satisfy the extreme and outrageous element. The rule statement, explanation, and application will be discussed based on several cases. Rule Statement According to GTE Southwest (1 and 2), an individual can recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress as long as he can or she is capable of recognizing the elements or components of the origin of action. To recover the damages, the plaintiff is supposed to prove that; (a) the defendant’s action was reckless or intentional; (b) the conduct or behavior was extreme and outrageous; (c) the defendant’s actions caused the plaintiff’s emotional distress; and (d) the outcome of the emotional distress was severe. According to this case, these are the conditions that must be met for the case to be considered intentional infliction of emotional distress. It is important to note that the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress “cannot be maintained when the risk that emotional distress will result is merely incidental to the commission of some other tort” (GTE Southwest 2). Consequently, an assertion for intentional infliction of emotional distress cannot lie of the emotional distress is not the primary or the intended result of the conduct of the defendant (GTE Southwest 2). For an individual’s conduct to be extreme and outrageous, it must be very outrageous in nature and so extreme such that it goes beyond the levels of decency. It is worth noting that rude or even insensitive behavior does not amount for the conduct to be regarded as extreme and outrageous. Similarly, indignities, annoyances, mere insults, petty oppressions, or even threats do not go the extent of being extreme and outrageous conduct. When the courts determine if the conduct is extreme and outrageous, they consider the context or the setting, and the relationship between the involved parties. The extreme and outrageous conduct may emerge from an abuse of an individual who have significant authority over the other or possesses the power to influence his or her interests (GTE Southwest 2). In the Southwest Bell Mobile Systems v. Franco case, enough evidence must be given to firmly assert that the plaintiff suffered emotional distress. To claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the mentioned conditions must be fulfilled and sufficient evidence given to prove actually emotional distress occurred based on what the plaintiff claims. This is so in regard to the second element which attempts to prove that the action was extreme and outrageous (Southwest Bell 2). Rule Explanation The intentional infliction of emotional distress has been used widely in the past by legal authorities. The rule has been used in solving cases in which the plaintiff claims he or she suffered emotional distress because of the actions of the defendant. The four cases offer a vivid picture of how the rule has been used. In all four cases, the conditions for intentional infliction of emotional distress must be met. These conditions include (a) the defendant’s action was reckless or intentional; (b) the conduct or behavior was extreme and outrageous; (c) the defendant’s actions caused the plaintiff’s emotional distress; and (d) the outcome of the emotional distress was severe. For the second condition to be met, enough evidence must be offered. In the absence of this approval, the defendant has no case to answer. In all the cases except the first case, insufficient evidence was given by the plaintiffs, and this made the courts to dismiss the cases. In the first case, sufficient evidence was given to prove that GTE caused emotional distress on its employees. All the three plaintiffs’, according to an expert witness, suffered from (PTSD) post-traumatic stress disorder (GTE Southwest 2). In determining whether the conduct of shield was extreme and outrageous, it was found that he acted with intention that was malicious, criminal, or even tortious. It is important to note that the defendant’s intent was relevant; however, the conduct was extreme and outrageous such that it could support liability. Despite the fact that GTE defended Shield’s conduct as his management style, it went way beyond the limits of tolerable workplace conduct (GTE Southwest 6). In the second case, Franco and Mendez failed to conclusively prove that the agents of Southwestern Bell acted in an extreme and outrageous during their termination. Southwestern Bell argued that the evidence given was legally not sufficient to indicate that its agents’ behavior was extreme and outrageous. The evidence produced by Franco and Mendez attempted to show that Southwestern Bell dismissed them of their duties, coerced them to gather and remove their belongings in the presence of other coworkers, and instantly took steps to repossess Southwestern Bell car phones. The court ruled that termination alone was not sufficient evidence to prove that Southwestern Bell agents behaved in an extreme and outrageous way (Southwest Bell 2). In the third case, there was sufficient to prove that Mattix-Hill caused emotional distress to Reck. However, the court found that there was no sufficient evidence to prove that Mattix-Hill caused emotional distress to Reck. This is because Mattix-Hill was doing his duty as a DHS caseworker. It is important to note that DHS caseworkers deal with emotionally charged cases, and, thus, they may be confronted with conflicting duties and interests (Mattix-Hill 2). In the fourth case, the trial court could not find any evidence of severe emotional distress or even outrageous behavior. The judgment was based on the negligent infliction of emotional distress (Twyman 4). The outcome in all the cases was based on various facts such as insufficient or sufficient evidences to support the claims the defendants’ behavior was extreme and outrageous. In the first case, there was enough evidence to prove that GTE caused emotional distress on its employees, and the fact was supported by evidence given by an expert witness. For instance, the behavior of Shield was considered extreme and outrageous though he had his own form of management style. In the second, third, and fourth cases, there was insufficient evidence to prove emotional distress. For instance, in the third case, conflict of duties and interests could not sufficiently prove that Mattix-Hill caused emotional distress to Reck. His performance of duty was not considered by the court as extreme and outrageous. Application Mr. Crane’s remarks are not enough to prove that he caused emotional distress on Ms. Jeffers. Based on the second case, it can be argued that Mr. Crane was doing his duty as a “gymnastics coach” and he knew the strengths and weaknesses of each student. Thus, in his opinion based on the performance of the student, he could give a conclusive statement about the student. Just like Mattix-Hill, conflicts of duties and interests emerged. Though Mr. Crane talked in a harsh tone, this cannot be enough to consider his conduct as extreme and outrageous. In the first case, it is clearly stated that indignities, annoyances, mere insults, petty oppressions, or even threats do not amount to be considered as extreme and outrageous conduct. Ms. Jeffers has not yet claimed that she has suffered emotional distress from the remarks made by Mr. Crane. However, if she claims, it will be important that she prove that the coach caused emotional distress as seen in all the four cases. The fact that Mr. Crane talked in an inhumane manner, his conduct can still be regarded as extreme and outrageous if Ms. Jeffers gives sufficient evidence. Thus, Ms. Jeffers can win the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. However, Mr. Crane’s conduct is probably not extreme and outrageous. Counter-Analysis It is probable that Mr. Crane’s conduct will not be considered as extreme and outrageous. However, his conduct can be considered extreme and outrageous by the court if it will be based on facts like those given in the first case. The facts given in the first case do not sufficiently prove that Shield’s behavior was extreme and outrageous (though the court found his behavior as extreme and outrageous). To deal with “bad facts,” the arguments presented will be based on facts and laws in the second, third, and fourth case. Works Cited Thomson Reuters/Westlaw. GTE Southwest Inc. v. Bruce, 998 S.W.2d 605 (Tex. 1999). Eagan, MN: Thomson Reuters/Westlaw, 2009. Print. Thomson Reuters/Westlaw. Mattix-Hill v. Reck, 923 S.W.2d 596 (Tex. 1996). Eagan, MN: Thomson Reuters/Westlaw, 2009. Print. Thomson Reuters/Westlaw. Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, Inc., 971 S.W.2d 52 (Tex. 1998). Eagan, MN: Thomson Reuters/Westlaw, 2009. Print. Thomson Reuters/Westlaw. Twyman v. Twyman. 855 S.W.2d 619 (Tex. 1993). Eagan, MN: Thomson Reuters/Westlaw, 2009. Print. Read More