Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: A Case Study
$19.95 Buy and instantly download this paper now
The paper relates that in Massachusetts, state law protects individuals from severe emotional distress, even without bodily injury, caused by people without the right to inflict such harm. The paper describes the scenario where Mary Jane endured such emotional distress at the hands of off-duty Officer Stubbornman, a security guard for Tal-Mart Store, when he detained her for three hours on suspicions that she had shop lifted and refused to allow her to breastfeed her 8 month old son for the entirety of her detainment. The paper explains how Officer Stubbornman's actions fulfilled all of the requirements for intentional infliction of emotional distress and the cause of action could be proven based on the facts of this case. The paper conclude that Mary Jane should prevail under state law in Massachusetts and be awarded punitive damages for the emotional distress of her and her son, the cost of her medical treatment and any loss of income due to the emotional distress caused by the defendant.
From the Paper:"In order to prove a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, Attorney Iamslick must prove that this claim meets the four requirements of the law. The first requirement is that Officer Stubbornman acted with the intention to cause Mary Jane emotional distress or that he knew or should have known that his conduct was likely to result in her emotional distress. The second requirement is that the conduct of Officer Stubbornman was extreme and outrageous. Third, Attorney Iamslick must prove that Officer Stubbornman's actions caused Mary Jane's emotional distress. Lastly, the emotional distress must have been so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure the distress. (Agis v. Howard Johnson Co., 1976)
"The first element requires that Officer Stubbornman had intended to inflict emotional distress on Mary Jane or that he knew or should have known that his actions would cause her emotional distress. In Cady v. Marcella (2000), the court determined that a jury can decide if societal norms and common decency dictate that a defendant should have known that their actions would cause emotional distress. Attorney Iamslick would argue that Officer Stubbornman should have known that detaining a woman with her infant son for three hours and refusing to allow her to breastfeed him would cause emotional distress. Officer Stubbornman, as a mandated reporter under Massachusetts law, should have known that not feeding a child under the age of 18 is neglect (Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 119, 51A 2010)."
Sample of Sources Used:
- Agis v. Howard Johnson Co., 371 Mass. 140 (1976).
- Boyle v. Wenk, 378 Mass. 592 (1979).
- Cady v. Marcella, 49 Mass. App. Ct. 334 (2000).
- Chase v. First Parish Church, 11 Mass. L. Rep. 260 (2000).
- Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 119, 51A (2010).
Cite this Case Study:
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: A Case Study (2013, April 24) Retrieved November 26, 2020, from https://www.academon.com/case-study/intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress-a-case-study-152739/
"Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: A Case Study" 24 April 2013. Web. 26 November. 2020. <https://www.academon.com/case-study/intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress-a-case-study-152739/>