Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Cases - Case Study Example

Overall you did a very nice first draft and nice job with the detailed fact section. You do need to do more work analyzing the facts in each of the three cases, mentioning and explaining the rules that come from those cases as a result of the facts before the court, and drawing similarities or differences between those facts and the Client fact pattern.. The detail in your fact section of the memo juxtaposed to the discussion section is much longer and it makes your discussion section look all the more "thin" on the facts. MEMORANDUM To: "Senior Associate" From: " " Subject: Harold Muerton, Client/Matter # 320-68770 Date: Sunday, September 28 2008 7:30:29 p.m. QUESTION PRESENTED Although the client had a pre-existing disclosed trauma which was disclosed to the proposed defendant and the client took and passed psychological examination, is there a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress under California tort law based upon the facts presented SHORT ANSWER No because while the statute does not definitively require due diligence on the part of defendants, plaintiff did receive and pass psychological testing before engaging in the reality program and therefore defendants will likely not be held responsible. STATEMENT OF FACTS A lounge singer and Sacramento native, Mr. Muerton is currently unable to work because he suffers from recurring panic attacks, clinical depression, and paralyzing stage fright. He claims that these serious conditions are the result of Barnett Productions' duping him into participating in a reality television show called "Regular Guy," where, during the show's taping, he was forced to partake in humiliating school-yard contests while a group of athletically gifted "hunks" ridiculed his limited physical abilities. According to the client, show producers revealed, as they pulled up to beach front property which was directly across from the school which was the situs of Mr. Muerton's bullying, that the show was going to be called "The In Crowd Now" and that it would be about men who had been unpopular kids and had transformed into well-liked, successful adults. Only then did, Merton, as he was being prepared for the taping on a new segment based upon bullying learn the show was actually called "Regular Guy," and would be about 15 average-looking roommates competing for the affections of one beautiful woman, named Clarissa. Mr. Muerton claims that Barnett knew he would experience a negative psychological reaction to these staged events, which mirrored emotionally scarring grade-school bullying that he had experienced as a child. Prior to the taping of the show, Barnett was completely informed that Muerton that he had been abused while in grammar school. Disclosures included but were not limited to being targeted at recess by large cruel jocks; whippings during games of dodge balls; and verbal taunts such as "Watch the little loser run home to mommy after I nail him," and "I wish the ball was harder so it could crack your skull." As a direct result of the bullying, he was home schooled. Further, Merton stated "when they told me I would be cast in the show pending a background investigation and psychological testing. I passed both." During the taping of the recess segment, Merton was told by the hunks "They shouted insults. I remember, one of them said to another, "What a bunch of losers. These guys look like 14-year-olds. We should kick their asses." And another one said, "See these babies squeal I bet they're about to go in their pants." Originally scheduled to air on the Fox network this fall, the debut of "Regular Guy" has been postponed indefinitely. In sum, the issue is whether there would be a sustainable cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress DISCUSSION This memorandum encompasses three cases applied to the facts presented. Against that backdrop, pursuant to Yurick, a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress likely does not lie. According to Yurick, courts generally do not allow "recovery for mere profanity, obscenity, or abuse, without circumstances of aggravation, or for insults, indignities or threats which are considered to amount to nothing more than mere annoyances." Id. at 1128. During the taping of the show, Mr. Merton stated that: "We went to a grade school about 45 minutes away from the beach and the house where we were staying. The producers herded us into a classroom, and Clarissa was led to the front. She announced that the rest of the afternoon would consist of 'recess,' pitting the 'old students' against the 'new students'." He further noted that this event placed him emotionally back to the indecencies he experienced in grade school which led to him being home schooled. Despite Mr. Merton's objections, he was told by Barrett: "Sorry, my friend, people love to watch this ambush stuff." Under California law, recovery under a theory of intentional infliction of emotional distress requires a showing of: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant; (2) with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress;(3) which actually and proximately causes (4) the plaintiff's severe or extreme emotional distress. Yurick citing to Inland Mediation Board et al. v. City of Pomona et al. 31 Cal.App.4th 1023, 1137 (2001). Muerton's case will only move forward if he can demonstrate that the deception by the producers can be defined as "outrageous" by courts. Conduct may only be considered "outrageous," only if it is so extreme as to "exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community." Inland Mediation Board et al. v. City of Pomona et al. 31 Cal.App.4th 1023, 1156 (2001). Here, the main issue is whether or not the conduct of the production teamed reaches that level of "outrageous". Generally, conduct will be found to be actionable where the "recitation of the facts to an average member of the community would arouse his resentment against the actor, and lead him to exclaim, 'Outrageous!' " Inland Mediation Board et al. v. City of Pomona et al. 31 Cal.App.4th 1023, 1158 (2001). In Yurick, the plaintiff had been taunted about her age and the defendant consistently stated that anyone over forty was a liar and senile. Id. at 1127 . The defendant in Yurick had consistently announced that those over forty were senile and liars. However, in Yurick, the court found that because the plaintiff had admitted the defendant was certainly capable of far worse commentary, the couduct which constituted the basis of the lawsuit had not risen to the level of "outrageous". Here, while it is true that Mr. Merton was tormented by the so-called hunks, the behavior displayed by the other show contestants does not amount to anything more than annoyance. Id. at 1128. However there is nothing in this fact pattern that demonstrates circumstances that were intended to amount to anything more than mere annoyances. Yurick at 1126. Thus, while there was an extreme reaction, the actions upon which the reactions were based, do not rise to the level required for an action alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress. Id. at 1128. Although Barnett was aware of Murton's sensitivities, Barnett did have Murton psychologically tested (which Murton admits) and further, Murton passed the test. Additionally, Murton is not complaining of being deceived, he is complaining that memories resurfaced, which as the court noted, does not amount to anything more than annoyance. Yurick at 1128. In Board et al. v. City of Pomona et al. 31 Cal.App.4th 1023, 1157 (2001), on a motion for summary judgment by the defendant, the court found that comments made by defendant Keagy , a town officer representing the town at a hall meeting were discriminatory and were directed against African-Americans. Id at 1158. The court noted that "Plaintiff Cross was the only African-American in the room at the October 1st meeting Those facts alone could prove sufficient to allow a jury to conclude that Defendant Keagy knew or had reason to know that Cross would be especially susceptible to emotional distress as a result of discriminatory conduct at the K-KAPS meeting". It must be noted the court found that although special susceptibility to emotional distress is not a required element of the tort, the jury is allowed to consider it in determining whether conduct is "outrageous". Id. at 1158. Applying this case to the facts presented by Mr. Merton, it is possible that a jury could infer that because Mr. Merton informed Barret that "he had not received treatment for his grade school trauma", deceiving him and casting him in this show would be outrageous. Board et al. v. City of Pomona et al. 31 Cal.App.4th 1023, 1157 (2001). The court in Board found that "Keagy knew or had reason to know that Cross would be especially susceptible to emotional distress as a result of discriminatory conduct at the K-KAPS meeting. Id. at 1159. Likewise here, a court could find that Barret knew that Mr. Merton would be especially susceptible to emotional distress as a result of bullying conduct that he suffered and disclosed to Barret. Id. We should be cognizant that the main difference between Mr. Merton and Keagy is that Mr. Merton took a psychological exam which he passed and which therefore may take Barret out of the "reckless" quagmire. Hence, as noted above, we should be prepared to argue that the purpose of the psychological exam was to gage the mental status of the participating candidates. In KORTV et al. v. Superior Court of Sacramento et al., 209 Cal.App.3d 1116 (1995), the court introduced a new interpretation of "outrageous" into evaluating intentional infliction of emotional distress cases. Id. at 1118. This case explored whether a news reporter could be found liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress when he informed three minors that their next door neighbor killed her two children and herself. Id. at 1116. The children were friends of the murdered children and the question was whether the reporter's conduct (in interviewing the children while their parents were not home and informing them of the grisly events next door), constituted outrageous conduct. Id. This case is easily distinguished by Mr. Merton's fact pattern because Muerton did have a psychological examination, which demonstrates that the production team in fact did take into account the consequences of Merton appearing on the show which in turn reveals that the conduct of production was not outrageous. Read More