preview

Harris V. Wideman Case Summary

Decent Essays

(EC & LQF)Can the plaintiff, Wideman, maintain a lawsuit for intentional infliction of emotional distress when the defendant, Lucas, knowing that the plaintiff had serious concerns for the safety of he and his family after representing the state in a serious criminal case, posted a photo of the plaintiff with his wife and children on twitter, and also made the location of the plaintiff’s home available to the public, causing the plaintiff to suffer from serious medical and emotional impairment? II. Short Answer (EC & LQF) Mr. Wideman, is likely to succeed in recovering damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress from Ms. Lucas. The court’s decision in Harris v. Jones, 281 Md. 560, 566, 380 A.2d 611, 614 (1977) provides the controlling law of the case and …show more content…

The second prong aims to prove that the conduct was extreme and outrageous, going beyond certain standards of decency. The third determines whether there is a causal connection between the reckless conduct and the emotional distress. Lastly, the fourth prong states that the injury must be severe. In Wideman’s case, the facts are sufficient to allow him to recover damages from Lucas for intentional infliction of emotional distress. First, the conduct of Lucas was reckless because Lucas was aware of the troubles and dangers Wideman was dealing with because of the case, and she still proceeded to post a tweet that could have compromised the safety of Wideman and his family because of the geotag and mention of the case that has resulted in death threats. Secondly, the conduct of Lucas was extreme and outrageous because Lucas knew that Wideman was susceptible to emotional distress as a result to photo being posted and abused a relationship between herself and Wideman when she turned a private conversation public. In addition, there is a causal connection between Wideman’s emotional distress and Lucas’ tweet, once

Get Access