Kramodlog
Naked and living in a barrel
This is very much harassment. It would be a frivolous lawsuit made by someone who has his butt hurt and wants revenge by all means, not someone who was actually wronged.
Trick or treat?
- Status
I'll spell it out for you (again): even though it may be stress-inducing, not every threat of a lawsuit is harassment. Merely threatening or even filing a single lawsuit fails to meet the legal definition of harassment in every court system in which I've practiced or studied unless the underlying pleadings are without merit or there is evidence that it is part of a pattern of other behaviors deemed to be harassment.
We were discussing an allegation of intentional infliction of emotional distress in response to letters given to fat kids instead of candy while Trick-or-Treating.
The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress has four elements: (1) the defendant must act intentionally or recklessly; (2) the defendant's conduct must be extreme and outrageous; and (3) the conduct must be the cause (4) of severe emotional distress.
On 1, there is no question in this hypothetical/hoax that the behavior in question was intentional or reckless. The way it was framed makes that obvious. Nor is there a meaningful question that the behavior was the cause of the emotional distress. There is also no question that a parent in this situation would hope to win te case.
THAT gets you into court before a judge, and nullifies the legal argument that the suit is a SLAPP- a harassment lawsuit.
Then the claimants would have to prove that the distress was severe AND the respondent's actions were extreme and outrageous. (Depending on the court and the respondent's motions, that would mean convincing a judge or jury.)
If that isn't good enough for you, well, might I suggest you take a formal class to study the workings & procedures of legal systems and stop playing on the Internet.
Homicidal_Squirrel
Adventurer
I'm going to have to disagree there, counselor. How do prove that this behavior was reckless? Also, when you say "intentional," what is it that you are referring to as being "intentional?" The causing of emotional distress? It can be argued that her intuition wasn't to cause emotional distress, but rather to educate the parents and the child about eating habits. So you would need to prove that her intention was to cause emotional distress, wouldn't you? That it was caused does not mean that was the intention.
Kramodlog
Naked and living in a barrel
You're kidding right? Reckless, extreme and outrageous? That letter/behavior is none of the those. A lawyer that would claim that before a judge would lose a lot of credibility.
And if a letter that says someone needs to take care of your weight causes severe emotional distress, well I recommand eating a gallon of ice cream to deal with the pain, not a lawsuit to get revenge.
Zombie_Babies
First Post
Maybe this all strikes a li'l too close to home for some members? Seems there's some real emotional investment here.
First, the tort is has an either/or formulation. To file, one need only allege intent or reckessness, not both.
Under the law, reckessness is the state of mind accompanying an act that either pays no regard to its probably or possibly injurious consequences, or which, though foreseeing such consequences, persists in spite of such knowledge.
For intent, all that need be proven is that the defendant acted with the specific intent to perform (i.e. acted with a mental state of intentionally performing) the act which was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. The concept of 'intention' in the intentional torts does not require defendants to know that their acts will result in harm to the plaintiffs. Defendants must know only that their acts will result in certain consequences.
So, to proceed with a lawsuit under this tort, it is not required that anyone allege that the intent was to cause harm at all, merely that:
1) she intended to perform the act that caused the alleged injury,
Or
2) she didn't contemplate that harm could result,
Or
3) she knew harm could result, but proceeded anyway.
Last edited:
That is for a trier of fact- a judge or jury, depending- to decide. IOW, that issue gets decided in court, not in pleadings. Or in press conferences.
The good news for your position is that he burden of proof is on the plaintiff.
The bad news is that it's a "community standard" type assessment, and all that the plaintiff needs is a majority...if it were before a jury.
Which is why a defendant in a case like this might opt for a bench trial- no jury, just a judge sitting as trier of fact AND law.
Nah, not really.
In every trial above the JP level, there are almost always 3 lawyers in the courtroom: one each representing a client, and the judge. We all go through the same training, we all have experience in advocacy.
The result is that unless you suborn perjury, your colleagues will understand that you're just doing your job.
And I can guarantee you someone would take this case.
Last edited:
Kramodlog
Naked and living in a barrel
There are all sort of shills in life, and plenty of them are lawyers, but I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying someone can't sue the woman because their butt hurts. I'm saying a judge will dismiss this frivalous case, like we dismiss a kid that is crying cause his brother told him he was poopie. Of course, we will never know cause this was a hoax of some sort.
And what I'm telling you is that a judge won't dismiss the case before trial because the fact pattern meets the criteria for pleadings for intentional torts. The intentional conduct + upset child will get you to the point of conducting discovery and hearing testimony. IOW, you act like the woman in the hoax and get sued, you WILL be spending money on attorneys and spending time in court.
Which shows that off all the stupid responses I can see somebody having to their kid being upset, sicking lawyers on the enemy seems to be the most effective.
Better Call Saul!
- Status
Similar Threads
