16. If the widow sues the developer for damages for emotional distress, will she prevail?

Intentional infliction of emotional distress («IIED») is an intentional tort defined as the intentional or reckless infliction, by extreme and outrageous conduct, of severe emotional or mental distress, even in the absence of physical harm. To establish intent for IIED, the plaintiff must show one of three possible mental states by the defendant, including that he: (i) desired to cause the plaintiff emotional distress; (ii) knew with substantial certainty that the plaintiff would suffer emotional distress; or (iii) recklessly disregarded the high probability that emotional distress would occur.

Regarding the element of severe emotional or mental distress, the plaintiff must show that she, in fact, suffered severe emotional distress. The plaintiff must also show that the conduct was such that a reasonable person would suffer such distress. If she is an unusually sensitive person who suffered severe distress when a normal person would not, there will be no recovery. Most modern courts do not require a showing of actual physical harm to establish severe distress.

Note: Negligent infliction of emotional distress only applies in situations where the defendant created a foreseeable risk of physical injury to the plaintiff, that the plaintiff was within the «zone of danger» and experienced distress accompanied by physical symptoms.

C is correct. The widow will not prevail in a suit for damages based on emotional distress. The only applicable claim would be intentional infliction of emotional distress («IIED»), which requires a showing that the defendant acted with extreme and outrageous conduct, with the intent to cause severe emotional distress, and that the conduct, in fact, caused severe emotional distress. Although actual physical injury is not required for an IIED claim, the emotional distress must be more than a reasonable person could be expected to endure. In this case, the widow was «badly frightened by the developer's threat» and «outraged when she learned that the developer had lied to her.» Being badly frightened and outraged, without more, is not enough to show severe emotional distress. Moreover, the widow sought her nephew's opinion after the developer acted the way he did, which does not support a finding that she was severely distressed given her ability to seek advice.

A is incorrect. Although extreme and outrageous conduct must be shown to support an IIED claim, this alone is not enough. The plaintiff must also show that she suffered severe emotional distress. As explained above, the widow here did not suffer severe emotional distress by merely feeling badly frightened and outraged.

B is incorrect. As previously explained, the widow's distress of being badly frightened and outraged, without more, is not enough to show severe emotional distress. She made no showing that she required any outside medical attention for her suffering, only that she was upset and that she even sought her nephew's advice about the situation after the threat. This does not support a finding that her distress was severe.

D is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. Although the widow will not prevail on a claim for damages resulting from emotional distress, it is not because the developer lacked the intent to cause emotional distress. Intent for an IIED claim may be shown by proof that the defendant merely knew with substantial certainty that the plaintiff would suffer emotional distress or that he recklessly disregarded a high probability that it would result. Nevertheless, the widow will still lose on an IIED claim because she lacks sufficient proof that she suffered severe emotional distress.