labrat, it would really help the volunteers here if you could keep all of your questions in
one thread, instead of spreading your questions out in different threads. Thanks.
There are several Missouri cases that discuss the differences between the torts of intentional infliction of emotional distress (for a good discussion of IIED, look at
Polk v INROADS/St. Louis, Inc, 951 S.W. 2d 646,648, Mo Ct App, 1997) and negligent infliction of emotional distress (for a good discussion of NIED, look at
Fust v Francis, 913 S.W. 2d 38, Mo App, 1995).
"Intentional" in law means that there is an aim of carrying out an act (an
intent behind the act). "Negligence" in law means the failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in a similar situation. Continuous harassment conducted over a period of time would probably not be looked at by a court as "negligent" but rather as "intentional" (acts designed with an intent to harm), however whether the harassment you have suffered could meet all of the elements required for either IIED or NIED would depend on a review of all of the facts.
There are a few cases (including the ones above) that would be important for you to review (see below), to get a better idea if the harassment you have suffered can support either an IIED or a NIED claim.
First, the Restatement (Second) of Torts (§46 cmt. d, 1965) says that for an
intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, there must be proof that the conduct of the defendant was intentional or reckless and extreme and outrageous, "so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community." There is a high level of proof required to meet the elements of this claim.
IIED claims will not be supported by mere annoyances and insults, petty harassment, or even threats (
Viehweg v Vic Tanny International of Missouri, Inc, 732 S.W. 2d 212, 213, Mo App 1987). However, in Missouri, it is not necessary to support a claim of IIED with medical documentation either (
Dean v Cunningham, Missouri, 2006).
For
negligent infliction of emotional distress claims, on the other hand, the claim
must be medically documented, with medically diagnosable and medically significant harm demonstrated (
Bass v Nooney, 646 S.W. 2d 765, Mo. banc 1983). You would have to have documentation showing a medically diagnosed or diagnosable condition resulted from the negligent act of the defendant.
In
Dean v Cunningham, the Missouri Supreme Court discussed and interpreted Missouri law that required medical testimony to support tort claims of emotional distress and the Court referred to the cases cited above. The Court said:
"...
Bass involved a tort claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress where medically documented damages are an element of the cause of action. In contrast. . . .[for] the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. . . . medically documented damages need not be proven."
and:
"Of a different sort are mental distress injuries claimed in common law tort cases where there has been no physical injury. . . .To establish such a claim, the plaintiff must show a medically diagnosed condition resulted from the negligent act. . . By contrast, courts have held, after
Bass, that for intentional torts no medical testimony is needed to show mental or emotional distress."
Without medical documentation, therefore, the harassment you have suffered could not support a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim. If the harassment is "outrageous and atrocious" enough, the harassment you have suffered could
potentially support an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim (however IIED claims are rarely won by a plaintiff).
