What is the name of your state?Florida
I have a general question regarding what are considered "outrageous" actions in regards to the intentional infliction of emotional distress. I understand that what is considered outrageous is open to interpretation and dependent upon the context. For example one person insulting and harassing another person might not be considered "outrageous" under normal circumstances. However if it is an employee engaging in the behavior against a "patient" in a facility it might be. Any ideas or cases you can point out legal scholars?
The elements of an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim in Florida are the following:
To prove intentional infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff must show:
(1) The wrongdoer's conduct was intentional or reckless, that is, he intended his behavior when he knew or should have known that emotional distress would likely result;
(2) the conduct was outrageous, that is, as to go beyond all bounds of decency, and to be regarded as odious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community;
(3) the conduct caused emotional distress; and
(4) the emotional distress was severe.
LeGrande v. Emmanuel, 889 So.2d 991, 994 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). What constitutes outrageous conduct is a question that must be decided as a matter of law. De La Campa v. Grifols Am., Inc., 819 So.2d 940, 943 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (“What constitutes outrageous conduct is a question for the trial court to determine as a matter of law.”) The plaintiff's “subjective response” to the conduct “does not control the question of whether the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress occurred.” Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Steadman, 968 So.2d 592, 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).
Deauville Hotel Mgmt., LLC v. Ward, 219 So. 3d 949, 954–55 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017). Note that the court states that it is the judge, not the jury, that determines if the conduct was sufficiently outrageous. In making that determination, the judge applies the following principles:
Behavior claimed to constitute the intentional infliction of emotional distress must be “ ‘so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency.’ ” Ponton v. Scarfone, 468 So.2d 1009, 1011 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (quoting Metropolitan, 467 So.2d at 278). In applying that standard, the subjective response of the person who is the target of the actor's conduct does not control the question of whether the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress occurred. Id. Rather, the court must evaluate the conduct as objectively as is possible to determine whether it is “ ‘atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.’ ” Id. (quoting Metropolitan, 467 So.2d at 278). Whether conduct is outrageous enough to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress is a question of law, not a question of fact. Gandy v. Trans World Computer Tech. Group, 787 So.2d 116, 119 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Ponton, 468 So.2d at 1011.
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Steadman, 968 So. 2d 592, 594–95 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007).
