Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress - Essay Example

Name Tutor: Assessment 2 Course: Date: Introduction An employer is subject to liability for deliberate infliction of emotional distress which is also referred to as tort of outrange to an employee. It is described as the tort of outrange in cases where an employer’s action cause severe or excessive emotional distress of an employee. The employer is also responsible for the other employees’ actions that cause extreme emotional distress to a particular employee. Fresco as the employer of Alan is responsible for the actions of Phillips- the manager as well as the actions of the other workers that caused emotional distress to Alan. Alan should thus seek for compensation from the company for the emotional distress caused to him by the actions of the Company’s employees. At one point, the manager hailed insults to Alan and threatened to fir him, which further escalated his emotional distress. The exposure to other employees also caused him extreme emotional distress, which in this case can be described as tort of range. Alan is thus liable for compensation by the company. Tort of range Tort is a legal term that includes various deliberate or accidental civil wrongs done to a person or property. Based on the facts of the matters in Alan’s case, he could file a legal suit against Fresco under intentional tort theorem. The theorem encompasses assault and body harm, false imprisonment, invasion of privacy, defamation, and deliberate cause of emotional distress to a person. Contrary to the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, they is no limit to the value of damages employers may be compelled to compensate a plaintiff in an intentional tort case. Due to this, it may be easy for the Alan to win the case and get compensation for the emotional distress caused. It is also an advantage to employees or plaintiffs in intentional tort cases because the courts are unwilling to allow employers to solve such cases through arbitration. Although at times the courts may consider arbitration as the method to solve tort cases or claims, they will consider conducting a fact-specific inquiry into the matters of the case. The courts thus take into considerations several issues before recommending for arbitration as a mechanism to resolve tort claims and disputes. In addition, employer can be held responsible for vicarious liability- that is, legally responsible for the actions of other employers. Under vicarious liability, the employers could be compelled to compensate for acts committed by other people such as their other employees. Incidences that occur out of work-related disputes or relations or out of the worker’s performance of their roles at the work place most likely lead to vicarious liability. The fact-specific nature of tort claims cause a challenge to the courts in determining when it is necessary to hold the employer responsible for vicarious liability. Although the employer may have valid reasons for defense against vicarious liability, it is still a serious challenge to persuade the courts to discharge tort claims. In view of the growing trend where employees’ suing for tort claims together with discrimination claims, and the threat of the uncapped jury decisions that may follow, there are various types of intentional tort claims that can be filed against a company. Limitations on liability In jurisdictions that have enacted workers compensation laws, employees are required to seek for compensation through the worker’s compensation systems as opposed to suing for tort claims. Many jurisdictions allow for some compensation for an employees workplace harm including emotional injuries and distress. The range of admissible cases into such jurisdictions however varies from state to state. For instance, many states allow employees to file private lawsuits for harm caused by employer’s intentional, willful, or deliberate actions. Intentional Tort Claims There are various forms of intentional tort claims that employees may sue their employers against. Assault and battery Despite that torts of assault and battery are normally accompanied by other torts, they have distinctive legal claims. A claim of battery entails deliberate conduct that results from a harmful or nasty contact with another person. For instance, workers who are subjected to forceful touching can file battery claims. Employees who are uncomfortable with contact by a colleague or supervisor can file assault claims. The two claims could also entail an extra underlying harassment. Intentional infliction of emotional distress A claim for assault demands for a proof of the injury caused. An employee who has been threatened and subjected to a likelihood of a future injury can however file for claims of deliberate infliction of emotional distress. Alan’s case falls under this category of intentional tort claims. The threat firing by the manger is a potential source of future injury. Alan had also suffered emotional distress from the actions of other employees because of the accident he had caused. An employer may be held liable for deliberate infliction of emotional distress caused by the actions of other people. Employees subjected to unfair treatment, retaliation or other actions that breach federal, state, or local anti-discrimination regulations normally sue for emotional distress claims. Alternatively, such claims can be handled as a separate lawsuit fueled by unbearable working conditions. Alan is likely to win the case in which the deliberate actions of the manager as well as other workers in the company caused emotion distress to him. Defamation Defamation entails the unprivileged exposure of false and damaging information to other parties. The tort of defamation is composed of two parts: libel part, which is the printed publication of defamatory information while slander is the oral publication of defamatory information. Employees who have a cause to believe that their boss exposed false information about them to other people, including their colleagues or potential employers, normally bring defamation claims. These claims mostly arise when employers discuss their workers performance, or dismissal with other people. It is also common for employees to assert defamation claims about an employer’s revelation of information concerning its findings into harassment, theft or other supposed crimes. Courts also consider defamation claims based on the theory of forced self-publication. Such claims may emerge where an employer has a cause to believe that the employee defamed will be under a powerful pressure to disclose the information in the defamatory report to a third party. For instance, compelled self-publication is possible in circumstances where a former employee is required to disclose the information that lead to a negative job reference to a possible employer. Privacy tort The right to privacy normally described as the right to be “left alone” is a right that is meant to safeguard workers at the workplace. These types of tort are classified into two categories. The first category has been established to protect a person’s interest by preventing the disclosure of sensitive information. Such claims have emerged from the employer’s unwarranted revelation of a worker’s medical or personal records. The other one is aimed at safeguarding a person from being trailed or encroached while carrying out private activities. Normally described as “Intrusion upon seclusion”, this category is intended to protect both the person’s body and the person’s interests. Employers have encountered intrusion upon seclusion claims for recording their employees’ activities in a manner that can be considered as offensive to a person. In one particular case in Illinois, a group of workers filed a suit against their employer for suspiciously recording them while getting treatments from the nurse’s office. Although the employer had placed the recording device in the room for security reasons, the court articulated that the type of recording device used exceeded the intents of recording theft of items from a desk. The case was thus referred for trial to determine whether the employer was responsible for violating the privacy tort. Additional workplace torts Other torts that exist at the workplace include public policy claims, false imprisonment claims, fraudulent inducement, or misrepresentation. Employees normally file suits on claims of public policy tort claiming that they were dismissed for refusing to breach the law, for executing a statutory obligation, for executing a statutory right or for reporting a suspected violation of a decree of public importance. Defenses for Torts There are three principal defenses to torts: consent, contributory negligence, and illegality. Consent Basically, one cannot be held responsible in tort claims for which he has consented. This is known as “volenti non fit injuria” which implies that no injury is done to an individual who consents. It is relevant when the plaintiff either explicitly or implicitly consents to threat of loss or damage. The level to which the defendants can rely on notices to leave out or limit liability varies from pace to place. This is a matter of policy as to whether defendants should warn the probable claimants of any known risks but also implement necessary measures to safeguard them from such risks. Contributory negligence In contributory negligence, the proportion of contribution made by the plaintiff to the loss or damages caused reduces a claimant’s compensation. Generally, contributory negligence can act as the defense when both parties involved in the suit have played some role in the tort. The court thus quantifies the losses, and then reduces the amount to be compensated to the plaintiff based on the role played by each party in the tort claim. Illegality Ex turpi causa non oritur action describes this form of defense. It means that no right action results from a despicable cause. If the plaintiff is involved in wrongdoing at the time the supposed negligence took place, this may reduce or reduce the defendant’s liability. For instance if a robber is verbally challenged by a property owner and gets injured while trying to escape, the owner is not responsible for injuries caused even though the robber would not have been injured had the property owner not intervened. Remedies for torts The major remedy against claims of tort is compensation in form of cash. In addition, in the case of continued tort, even where injury is just threatened, the courts will at times give an injunction. This means a directive other than compensation in form of money ordered by the court. This could be a directive such as warning the continuance or threat of harm. Normally, injunctions will not compel positive obligations on tortfeasors, although some jurisdictions can authorize specific performance to ensure that the guilty party executes their legal obligation, particularly about nuisance issues. Overlap between tort claims and criminal law There is some overlap between tort claims and criminal law and tort. For instance, an assault can be classified as both a crime and a tort. A tort allows a person normally the victim to get a remedy that caters for their own purposes, for instance by the compensation for damages to a person harmed in an accident or the obtaining of orders preventing the interference to one’s business. Criminal actions on the contrary are pursued not to get remedies to help a person but to get rid of their liberty on the nation’s behalf. That explains why internment is normally available as a penalty for serious crimes, but normally for torts. Conclusion When filing a case against a company, tort action plays a significant role. Tort action depicts some level of delinquency, though there are various types of tort action used to classify the form of wrongdoing. The discussed above has showed that tort action is categorized as intentional, negligent or absolute liability. Although there are various remedies to a tort claim, there are particular means of justifying each class. A negligent tort has been described as a certain act that threatens someone’s safety. Concerning insurance or other claims, an intentional tort requires the defendant be responsible for the behavior that caused unwarranted harm to another person. Alan is liable for compensation by the employer because of the emotional distress caused to him by the actions of his immediate manger as well as other workers in the workplace. The company is thus liable for intentional tort, which is not covered by insurance. Alan should thus strive to prove the greatest liability of the company in order to get the highest compensation. Bibliography Klar, Lewis. Tort Law. Toronto: Thomson Carswell, 2008, p32 Currie, S., & Cameron, D. 2000, "Your Law", Nelson Thomson Learning, Melbourne, p. 225 Williams, G. 1951 "The Aims of the Law of Tort", Current Legal Problems 137 Coase, R. H. 1960). "The Problem of Social Cost". The Journal of Law and Economics Read More