LAW (Essay Sample)

Law Student’s Name Institution Affiliation Instructors Name Date 2. The defendants conduct is extreme and outrageous Discussion The law on intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) is implemented when a party undertakes an abnormal or outrageous act to cause damage or emotional distress to another person. Missouri courts elaborate emotional distress as extreme and absurd, and they explain the extent of these terms above decency and intolerable. In the case of Viehweg v. Vic Tanny Intern. of Missouri 1987, the court ruled that "it is for the court to decide the if the defendant's action can be considered extreme and outrageous. According to the KOVR-TV, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th. To analyze the second element of the tort of "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, we must understand the three fundamentals" (1) Extreme and outrageous conduct by the offender to trigger emotional distress: (2) The petitioner grieved dangerous emotional suffering; and (3) the complainant's damages were almost closely instigated by the respondent's shocking behavior. Maria ascertains the second element: "The defendant's conduct is extreme and outrageous." The petitioner is a professional chef; therefore, such remarks are not necessarily a joke, and they can instigate a cause of action. The defendant's comments meet the second element of being extreme to exceed the boundaries of conduct in a civilized society. Although there is no moral value in judging outrageous behavior, it depends on the appraiser's perspective, deals, and degree of civility. Therefore, the verdict relies on intuition rather than reality.[KOVR-TV, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1023, 1028 [ 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 431]] [Supreme Court of California Donald Paul CHRISTENSEN, et al., Petitioners, v.The SUPERIOR COURT of Los AngelesCounty, Respondent;PASADENA CREMATORIUM OF ALTADENA,] The appellate courts have used this basis of "The respondent's conduct was not adequately outrageous" to avow orders that unremitted demurrers—Ankeny v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co. (1979). We have to reveal the conduct of the defendant and his normal state. Chef Smith regularly "yells" at restaurant chefs, employees, and owners. Chef Smith is "prone" to shouting. Further, his conduct has instigated chefs and proprietors to be hysterical. This tort is inapplicable to "threats, indignities, and mere insults" Therefore, petitioners must be well acquainted with society's "rough" standards. The petitioners are expected to comprehend a specific amount of rough language. The law is not likely to mediate in all cases where an individual's emotions are offended. We must consider the freedom to express opinions. An example is the tort law Thomas v. Douglas (9th Cor. 1989) 877 F.2d 1428, 1435. In the tort law Schneider v. TRW, inc (1991), the respondent's conduct was not considered outrageous; through the application of California law, the court held the complainant's evidence showing her supervisor yelled at her and made threatening gestures while disapproving of her job. In the decision in the case of Kiseskey v. Carpenters' Trust for So. California (1983), where the applicant Kiseskey litigated a labor society for intentional infliction of emotional distress, claiming a series of persecution to force him into signing another contract.[Angie M. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1226 [ 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 197]; Rest.2d Torts, § 46, com. f, pp. 75-76.)] [Thomas v. Douglas (9th Cir. 1989) 877 F.2d 1428, 1435 [applying Rest.2d Torts, § 46, principles to Ariz. law]] The petitioner claims that on different occasions, union officials called him and said:" You are a no good son of a bitch, and if you don't resign the contract and get under the union," The appellate court canceled the trial court's order withholding the union's demurrer. First, there is a comparison between Kiseskey and Maria. At the center of the interactions with people, Cheff Smith yells at restaurant chefs, employees, and owners. It is difficult to establish whether Chef Smith usually acted or he was insulting Maria. There is an evident pattern of Maria working with supervisors with a temper. Previously, she worked under Chef Simon, who was "known" for her character. Chef Simon claims," The food you prepared tonight is not fit for a stray dog!" Maria's dispute with her former employers hurt her emotions because her career was at stake. The law of intentional infliction of emotional distress does not eliminate these points. To have a contrary opinion would crowd law courts with trials, as such injuries, whether real or abstract, can be solved elsewhere. There is no evidence that the defendant's audience complained of his conduct on air. This tort creates a safety net whereby tempers can cause ineffective steam. An example of a tort where the respondent's conduct was considered adequately outrageous includes Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc. (1970), where the plaintiff is colored, claiming he was dismissed in a disgraceful way. When his director did this, he was shouting racial remarks. In the Newby v. Alto Riviera Apartments, A tenant was in a rent dispute, and the landlord yelled at her by ordering her out of the real estate within three days.[Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 493, 496-497 [ *497 86 Cal.Rptr. 88, 468 P.2d 216]] A shift in the tort law states, "The interest in freedom from extreme emotional distress is crucial enough to require refrain from conduct intended to invade it. This restatement of Torts says that "The injury suffered by the individual whose interest is invaded is constantly much more severe to him than certain injurious invasions of the interest in bodily integrity and other goods. However, it is not necessary to reject a cause of action for the intentional infliction of extreme emotional distress by measuring damages. It is noted that the absence of physical harm will push the court to assess the issue in the form of intense outrage. The court decides whether the respondent's conduct is considered extreme and outrageous to allow recovery. Where the individuals differ, it is a case for the subject to help the court to determine whether the conduct is unnecessary or excessive.[Kiseskey v. Carpenters' Trust for So. California (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 222 [ 192 Cal.Rptr. 492]] Whether the plaintiff suffers severe emotional distress, the court should determine whether emotional stress is extreme. Maria states that Chef Smith was hard on her for accusing her of being "incompetent" and "lazy" severally. Maria records she was "shaken and startled" by Chef Smith's action of accusing her of "trying to make people sick." It is evident that the respondent's action made Maria upset and humiliated, causing severe mental suffering. Emotional suffering has numerous synonyms, including; mental anguish, nervous shock, and mental suffering. Maria experienced unsuitable mental reactions such as grief, humiliation, anger, shame, worry, and disappointment. The jury's task is to analyze the evidence and determine whether emotional distress existed. However, it is not certain that the defendant knows that the distress he causes is certain. The plaintiff is relying on the real intent to cause distress. An inquiry into the cause of the emotional distress is solved by evidence, and the jury uses proximate cause to differentiate conflicting inferences. In the tort of KOVR–TV, INC v The SUPERIOR COURT, the first complaint consists of four allegations (1) intentionally and (2) negligently inflicted emotional distress upon the plaintiffs and (3) invading their privacy. The judgment was therefore passed on the basis that the defendant caused the intentional infliction of emotional distress. When deciding whether the conduct is extremely outrageous, it is not necessary that the respondent's behavior is rude. Consequently, such conduct can be outrageous if the respondent knows the plaintiff is prone to emotional distress. In this case, Maris is devastated over her mother's death, she admits she had difficulty accepting her mother's death, and she remembered her mother every day, especially when cooking Bundren v. Superior Court, supra, 145 Cal.App.3d at p. 790, 193 Cal.Rptr. 671; Rest.2d Torts, § 46, com. f, p. 75.[Bundren v. Superior Court, supra, 145 Cal.App.3d at p. 790, 193 Cal.Rptr. 671; Rest.2d Torts, § 46, com. f, p. 75] Depending on the plaintiff the extent of offensive conduct depends on the peculiarities of the plaintiffs. Chef Smith's alleged conduct, while maintaining objectivity, is a breach of normal standards of civility. The extreme and outrageous aspect of the conduct arises from what is undertaken from abuse by the respondent, which gives the defendant power to harm the plaintiff's interest. To some extent, Chef Smith abused his position of power as the supervisor. From the plaintiff's perspective, Chef Smith's comments were a milder expression of his normal communication during cooking sessions. Cases arising from an employment context are separated from facts. For example, Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 493, 86 Cal. Rptr. 88, 468 P.2d 216, the petitioner was humiliated with racial remarks before being fired. Therefore, Chef Smith negated the second element of intentional infliction of mental distress through outrageous conduct. In this context, the extreme and outrageous conduct by Chef Smith arises from an assault by an individual with a position of power. This act can make Chef Smith liable for extreme abuse of their hierarchy. In this case, landlords, creditors, and police officers have been assumed liable for severe abuse of their position. The actors have been held accountable for basic insults. Additionally, extreme and outrageous conduct can be evident if the respondent knows the other person is vulnerable to emotional distress. This conduct by the actor is considered heartless when he continues wi...