Torts Memo
George sued Jerry under a theory of intentional infliction of emotional distress, alleging various grievances. Jerry has moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that even if everything George alleges in the complaint is true, George has failed to allege an adequate basis for liability under a theory of intentional infliction of emotional distress. The issue at hand is should the court deny the motion to dismiss.
The essential elements of an action for intentional infliction of emotional distress in North Carolina are 1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant 2) which is intended to and does in fact cause 3) severe emotional distress. Extreme and outrageous conduct is conduct which exceeds all bounds usually tolerated by decent society. In Stanback v. Stanback, 297 N.C. 181, 204 (N.C. 1979), the courts ruled: “Although we find error in the grounds on which the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's Count Number II, we nevertheless affirm the dismissal on other grounds. The requirement that plaintiff in a malicious prosecution action based on a prior civil proceeding show some special damage resulting therefrom, as discussed supra, is an essential, substantive element of the claim.” In Hogan v. Forsyth Country Club Co., 317 N.C. 334, 346 S.E.2d 141 (1986), the court decided: “We hold Pfeiffer's conduct, as shown by Hogan's forecast of evidence, was not such as to be reasonably regarded as "extreme and outrageous" so as to permit Hogan to recover for intentional infliction of mental distress.”
The facts in this case are similar to Hogan. The courts ruled that the facts in Hogan did not meet the standards for intentional infliction of emotional distress set in Stanback, and decided for the defendant. Both decisions state clearly that there must be some sort of special damage and that the damage must be “extreme and outrageous.”
It is my opinion that the courts approve Jerry’s motion to dismiss as the facts in this case do
The essential elements of an action for intentional infliction of emotional distress in North Carolina are 1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant 2) which is intended to and does in fact cause 3) severe emotional distress. Extreme and outrageous conduct is conduct which exceeds all bounds usually tolerated by decent society. In Stanback v. Stanback, 297 N.C. 181, 204 (N.C. 1979), the courts ruled: “Although we find error in the grounds on which the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's Count Number II, we nevertheless affirm the dismissal on other grounds. The requirement that plaintiff in a malicious prosecution action based on a prior civil proceeding show some special damage resulting therefrom, as discussed supra, is an essential, substantive element of the claim.” In Hogan v. Forsyth Country Club Co., 317 N.C. 334, 346 S.E.2d 141 (1986), the court decided: “We hold Pfeiffer's conduct, as shown by Hogan's forecast of evidence, was not such as to be reasonably regarded as "extreme and outrageous" so as to permit Hogan to recover for intentional infliction of mental distress.”
The facts in this case are similar to Hogan. The courts ruled that the facts in Hogan did not meet the standards for intentional infliction of emotional distress set in Stanback, and decided for the defendant. Both decisions state clearly that there must be some sort of special damage and that the damage must be “extreme and outrageous.”
It is my opinion that the courts approve Jerry’s motion to dismiss as the facts in this case do