Legal Memorandum on Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Yandrich v. Radic, plaintiff was not successful in his claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff’s father committed suicide allegedly due to his depression from another son being killed by a car. 495 A.2d 460, 246 (Pa. 1981). The Court found that the father was not a witness because he was not in the immediate vicinity of the accident, and thus could not find for the plaintiff in this case. The differences between Yandrich and Ms. Nordlund’s claim outweigh their legal similarities, as the father in Yandrich did not see the scene of the accident like Ms. Nordlund did. Ms. Nordlund’s poor vision is a weakness in her claim, but having heard and seen the accident, (despite her blurry vision), may be strong enough to overcome

Paul Imbree, the plaintiff , a supervising licensed driver has suffered a serious injury in a road accident in Northern Territory due to the negligence and breach of duty of care by Jesse McNeilly aged 16 years & 5 months old, the first defendant, and an inexperienced driver not possessing any driver/ learner’s permit.

Taylor suffered serious emotional distress, part of which was fear for his and Mya’s life which led them to fleeing their home state of Massachusetts as a result of Murray’s continuous intimidations during four months. The issue in this case is whether Taylor has a claim against Murray for the intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress. Under Massachusetts law, the court will likely conclude that Taylor has a claim against Murray for his conduct toward Taylor because (1) Murray intentionally inflicted emotional distress to Taylor; (2) Murray’s conduct was extreme and outrageous; (3) Murray’s conduct directly caused Taylor’s emotional distress; and (4) Taylor’s emotional distress was severe. See Agis v. Howard Johnson Co., 371 Mass. 140, 144-45 (Mass. 1976); Quinn v. Walsh, 49 Mass. App. Ct. 696, 706-07 (Mass. App. Ct. 2000); Cady v. Marcella, 49 Mass. App. Ct. 334, 340-41, (Mass. App. Ct. 2000).

infliction of emotional distress from Ms. Lucas. The court’s decision in Harris v. Jones, 281 Md.

(c) Notwithstanding Subsection (b), an owner, lessee, or occupant of land may be liable for injury to a child caused by a highly dangerous artificial condition on the land if:

2. The outcome of this issue is governed by Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 (1965) Outrageous Conduct Causing Severe Emotional Distress. The elements of this cause of action are (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 the emotional distress; and (4) the emotional distress was severe.

The cars were being run at a very moderate speed, not over seven or eight miles per hour, that the signals required by law were given and that the child was not on the track over which the cars were passing, but on a side track near the main track. The company is not the insurer of ,or liable to those who ,of their own choice and with full notice, place themselves in the path of the train and are injured.

Facts: Ford Motor Company appealed the judgement of the Hampton County, South Carolina Circuit Court in a product liability claim. Cheryl Hale was driving several children to her house in her Ford Bronco. The Plaintiff Jesse Branham was riding in the backseat without wearing his seatbelt. Hale admitted that she took her eyes briefly off the road, and Bronco veered towards the side of the road, where the rear right wheel left the road. When Hale attempted to correct, she overcorrected and the Bronco rolled over. In the process of the roll over, Branham was ejected from the vehicle and sustained injuries. The case against Ford was based on two product liability claims, one a defective seatbelt sleeve claim and the other, a “handling and

A childs body temperature rises three to five times faster than an adult’s. This simple fact is a recipe for disaster when a child is left in a car. Each year an average of 38 children die of heatstroke in unattended cars. Over 60 percent of these deaths were complete accidents. Most people would be mad and claim that there is no such things as accidents when it comes to leaving a child in a car. That is very far from the truth; It is called Forgotten Baby Syndrome. These parents have had a major memory lapse and forgotten their child was there. Human memory is a very complex thing, and almost completely out of our control. There has been 647 recorded deaths since 1998. Accompanying these deaths has been over a hundred trials with charges of manslaughter. Should someone be charged with manslaughter if they had no control over what their memory was doing?

Sara, you brought about some interesting cases. I believe the point you made in case #8 that if the staff had monitored her respirations, heart rate, blood pressure or any vitals for that matter, they would have noticed them probably being elevated because I think that would be emotionally traumatizing to anyone in that circumstance. In that case, I believe the this was an “Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress,” because the doctor and anesthesiologist were aware that if the patient was not completely under for the duration of the surgery, this could cause the patient harm. The act contributed to mental anguish, and the actual cause was her awakening during surgery triggering her to be traumatized. It is also a case that represents neglect

Ms. Sander can likely maintain a claim for IIED against Coach Marinelli, on behalf of her son, Barry Sander; IIED is recognized, in Florida, as an independent cause of action. In order to prove IIED, four elements must be satisfied. First, we must prove that Marinelli’s conduct was intentional or reckless and that he knew or should have known that Barry would be emotionally distressed. Second, we must show that Marinelli’s conduct was outrageous. Next, we must demonstrate that Marinelli’s conduct caused Barry emotional distress and, finally, we must show that Barry’s emotional distress was severe. Dominguez v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, 59. Assuming that the other three components are fulfilled, Ms. Sander’s case will hinge primary on the second element of IIED: Marinelli’s outrageous conduct.

To state a claim for NIED, a plaintiff must show that: (1) he was located near the scene of the accident; (2) he sensorily and contemporaneously observed the accident; and (3) he and the victim are closely related. Sinn v. Burd, 404 A.2d 672, at 685 (Pa. 1979). There can be little dispute that Arnett was near the scene of the accident. However, whether Arnett sensorily and contemporaneously observed the incident and whether Nolan and Arnett are closely related are in question. This memorandum will address all three

Kyle Peterson was a graduate of Glidden-Ralston in 2010, and a day after his graduation party he was in a accident. To begin, the truck was rolled over twice, and Kyle was ejected from the driver side window and thrown into a field. After a hour of Kyle being unconscious, he finally could find his cell phone and call his dad. Once his parents got to the scene, they saw everything that unfolded. The truck was mangled, and there were pieces everywhere. The officer said that judging by the marks left on the road, he was traveling about 85 to 95mph when hitting the ditch. Kyle told the officer he swerved for a deer on the road, but that was a lie; he was actually very drunk and still smelled like alcohol. The cop tested him, and he was still one and a half over legal limit from the wreck. He got charged with reckless driving, Minor in Possession, and Driving Under Influence. According to Matthew Chambers from Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BOTS), a 0.08 blood alcohol concentration is limit for determining if drivers are driving under the influence (DUI) or driving while intoxicated (DWI). Walking away from the crash Kyle had a broken arm, lacerations to head, and a lower broken rib. This is one story of many about a family going through one terrifying night after receiving a call at 2 am from their son. A study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Sam turned 16 a couple months ago, and now has his license and may drive whenever he wants. He and his friends love to go out and party. Sam usually picks them all up and drives. One particular night, Sam and his friends were invited to a college party; they loaded up the car and rushed to the party. Sam and his friends are risk takers, so when the college boys dared them to do a keg-stand, they did not back down. Dizzy and disoriented, Sam squinted at the clock and noticed it was 3 AM. He had to get home before his parents realized that he was out past curfew. Sam shouted at his friends to get in the car; he knew he was not sober, but insisted that if he drove slowly they would be okay. The next morning, Sam’s parents woke up to an officer knocking on the front door. Sam’s car had crossed the margins in an area where there was no ditch and rolled the car down a hill. Sam was alive enough after the accident to call 911; all the boys were rushed to the hospital, but doctors did not hold high hopes for all the boys to survive.

Contractual liability is an obligation assumed by all of the parties of the contract under the term of this contract (Business Dictionary, 2013).