Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wincenworks" data-source="post: 9349835" data-attributes="member: 7038835">You would think so, but the conventional wisdom with torts is if they stop being ruled as happening - that means society has improved somewhat or all the relevant areas are now covered under statute or other actions.For example in New Zealand, pretty much all torts relating to personal injury are now barred under the Accident Compensation Act.  It's not that we don't injure each other, it's that the government pays for it.  For that reason, while IIED is theoretically available here, there is pretty much never a successful instance of it.The origin of the tort is a man who deliberately lied to a woman to make her believe that her husband had been beaten horribly, leading to her having a panic attack and having a miscarriage (he claimed it was a joke gone wrong).  (Wilkson v Downtown, 1897) So it was already very niche and intended for obscure situations, and it's even more complicated in the US because it uses the Free Speech standard (instead of the UK's Freedom of Expression standard).To succeed you must:1. You have to show what they did was exceptionally bad.  It can't just be a bad thing, it has to be something that essentially shocks the conscience.2. You have to show they did this deliberately to inflict emotional harm on the person.3. You have to show that the personal has actually suffered serious emotional harm.4. You have to show that 2 led to 3.5. It has to not be something that's better handled elsewhere in a statute or a more precise tort.6. There's not strong policy argument for it not to apply.5 - 6 are basically part of every tort, but often forgotten by newbie, lazy or reckless lawyers because they go unspoken in all the texts about the torts after Tort Law 101.For example, if someone gives you anxiety by spreading a rumour that you caught an STD and spread it to everyone who works for you - even though that's quite possibly 1 - 4, it's better handled as defamation.If someone spends two weeks hiding outside your house so that run up and hit you in the groin every time you step out, until such time you develop agoraphobia... they's harassment, assault and battery.The Chanko case cited by Snarf as the standard basically stated that while 2 - 4 had been met, it was better handled as a breach of confidientiality because they weren't comfortable with broadcasting without consent (even if it was the last moments of someone's life) meeting the criteria for 1 due to messy reasons regarding right of the press to investigate, record, broadcast etc and their lack of responsibility in that it happened to be the last moment's of someone's life.So basically like prima facie torts, it's intended as an obscure stop-gap for when something incredible happens which defies all the other possible remedies - so it's difficult to isolate any specific case where it should have applied, but very easy for careless lawyers who just read 1 - 4 and don't think about the history to go "Yeah we can definitely get that across the line of the preponderance of evidence" without realizing that they'll actually need to prove 5 and 6.I personally can't think of anything someone would do to meet that criteria in the modern day that wouldn't be criminal, and even then it would rely upon 1. the victim having the resources to sue and 2. the defendant being someone worth suing - even with the costs etc taken into account.</blockquote>

Verification