|
Tennessee has the
tort of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress which is an important cause
of action that allows a plaintiff to recover damages when the conduct of the
defendant is outrageous. There are very
specific requirements for a plaintiff to be able to prove this cause of action
in court. In order to support a claim
for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, the Tennessee Supreme Court
has held that the following elements are required:
The elements of an
intentional infliction of emotional distress claim are that the defendant's
conduct was (1) intentional or reckless, (2) so outrageous that it is not
tolerated by civilized society, and (3) resulted in serious mental injury to
the plaintiff. Regarding the first element, the law is clear in Tennessee and
elsewhere that either intentional or reckless conduct on the part of the defendant
will suffice to establish intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Rogers v. Louisville
Land Company et al, 367 S.W.3d 196, 205 (Tenn. 2012). The Rogers case is
a very important Tennessee Supreme Court case that definitively outlined the
requirements for this cause of action. In
this case the court made it very clear that there is no difference between a
claim for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and the claim for Reckless
Infliction of Emotional Distress. Both are considered part of the same cause of
action (either intentional or reckless conduct is sufficient to meet the
threshold required for this cause of action).
Further, the familiar standard of “outrageous”
conduct that has long been required for an Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
claim still stands. Specifically, that the conduct must be “so outrageous that it is not tolerated by
civilized society”. Obviously, this is
generally a jury issue however courts have long stepped in to evaluate whether
the facts of a case meet this threshold before sending the case to the jury. This standard is a standard that can change
over time because it is based on what is tolerated by “civilized society”. For example, it is my view that certain types
of sexual harassment and sexually hostile work environment situations are
currently experiencing a shift in what is tolerated by “civilized” society.
Importantly, our country is making significant progress on what it considers to
be outrageous conduct by individuals who sexually harass women. It is my position, therefore, that this
standard has changed over time and what may not have been considered outrageous
conduct in the 1980s certainly is outrageous conduct today.
|