Memo: Did Mr. Lawremnce commit IIED?
This paper discusses whether Mr. Lawrence's conduct as a coach for Jim Poppe in the hypothetical constituted the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED)? This question is important because Mr. Lawrence can only be held civilly liable for Jim's emotional distress, if he actually committed IIED. While it seems to be clear from the facts of the hypothetical that Jim suffered severe emotional distress, it is not clear that Lawrence's actions and words were severe enough to hold him liable for IIED. I will argue that Mr. Lawrence did not commit IIED. Although Jim did experience severe emotional distress from the coaching sessions, Lawrence's conduct was not outrageous or utterly intolerable, and therefore does not meet the standards necessary to qualify as IIED.
The concept of a tort for the intentional infliction of emotional distress first came to surface in the Florida Supreme Court in Slocum v. Food Fair Stores of Florida in 1958. Slocum asked the court to recognize the existence of IIED as an intentional tort. She had been insulted by an employee at a grocery store and later suffered a heart attack. She sought money damages for the emotional distress and ensuing heart attack. The court said that even if they did recognize the existence of IIED, it must be proven that the defendant meant to cause severe distress. They said a line has to be drawn between conduct likely to cause mere emotional distress and conduct that would cause severe emotional distress (Den Otter, 13). Thus, the court rejected Slocum's case because the store clerk's conduct was only intended to cause mere emotional harm at most.
Seven years later, in the District Court of Appeal of Florida, the case Korbin v. Berlin officially established IIED as an independent tort. The court ruled in order for conduct to qualify as IIED, it must be "calculated to cause severe emotional distress to a person (a child) of ordinary sensibilities" (Den Otter, 16). Consequently, Korbin established that IIED is examined differently for children than adults. When trying to determine if IIED took place in conduct toward a child, you must ask whether an ordinary child of that age would have been severely emotionally distressed. Furthermore, in the case Dominguez v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States the third District Court of Appeal of Florida created four elements necessary for IIED. (1) The wrongdoer's conduct was intentional and reckless, (2) the conduct was outrageous, that is, as to go beyond all bounds of decency, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community, (3) the conduct caused the emotional distress, and (4) the emotional distress was severe (Den Otter, 20). Thus, you have to examine the relationship of the parties when determining whether IIED occurred. Based on the elements necessary for IIED, I believe Lawrence should not be held liable for IIED. His actions did cause Jim's emotional distress, and the distress was severe, however it is a major stretch to claim Lawrence's conduct was reckless, outrageous, and utterly intolerable.
Those who feel Lawrence's conduct was IIED, would primarily argue that he did act outrageously and intolerably. They would probably point to Korbin as a basis for holding Lawrence liable in the common law hypothetical, claiming Lawrence's words, like Muriel Berlin's were intended to significantly harm the child emotionally. Furthermore, opponents of my view may hold that because children are treated differently than adults in IIED cases, Lawrence's words were cruel enough to cause severe emotional distress to a child of ordinary sensibilities.
In addition, the fact that Jim had intense nightmares where he would wake up screaming and his listless depression is another argument critics of my position would use to support the claim that IIED occurred. Consequently stating that such drastic emotional distress could only result from Lawrence committing IIED. Lastly, people have claimed Lawrence's harsh words illustrate that his intention was to emotionally harm Jim. Therefore, pointing out that Lawrence purposefully and maliciously assaulted Jim's mind.
I will agree with my opponents point that Jim was severely emotionally distressed as a result of his coaching session, but I don't agree with their claim that Lawrence's conduct was outrageous. Those who disagree with me compare Lawrence's conduct to the Berlin's in Korbin. However, Lawrence did not use harsh words out of a malicious motive. He told Jim's parents in his interview that he demanded the very best from his students and that he altered his coaching methods to whatever would improve the child's grades the most (Den Otter, 29). Whereas, Berlin told cruel lies simply to emotionally shock and hurt the six-year old girl. Lawrence only spoke harshly to Jim, to accomplish what he had promised; improved grades. And he succeeded.
Furthermore, had Jim been a ten year old boy of ordinary sensibilities, he would not have been so emotionally distressed by the insults. We are told in the hypothetical that Jim was a quiet and passive boy, but the parents never tell Lawrence about Jim's temperament. A fifth grade boy of ordinary sensibilities could handle being called a "stupid idiot" and being threatened with working at McDonalds. One only has to look at the way many football coach's scream and insult ten-year-old boys to determine Lawrence's language was not outrageous or utterly intolerable. Moreover, the idea that Jim's nightmares prove IIED took place is false. Just because Jim suffered severe emotional distress, does not mean the defendant acted outrageously or recklessly. Finally, IIED is not a strict liability tort. As the court in Slocum stated, conduct meant to cause mere emotional harm does not constitute IIED. Lawrence clearly intended only to cause enough emotionally distress to motivate Jim to do better in school.
Overall, Mr. Lawrence's conduct, as Jim's coach was certainly unkind and misguided because it severely hurt Jim emotionally. However, his actions did not rise to the level of outrageous or utterly intolerable, which is required to be held liable by the second element of IIED. Because all four elements must be met in order for conduct to be considered IIED, holding Mr. Lawrence civilly liable for his interactions with Jim is not legally permissible.
1,025 words / 5 pages
|
Home
