Lawyer Listings Add, Update, or Remove Listings

Emotional Distress Claims (IIED and NIED)

When the law compensates psychological harm on its own, without a physical injury - the intentional-infliction tort and its "outrageous conduct" threshold, the negligent-infliction claim and the limits states put on it (the impact, zone-of-danger and bystander rules), the proof a claim needs, and how these differ from the emotional-distress damages that ride on any ordinary injury claim.

Informational only - this is not legal advice. These definitions explain general legal vocabulary in plain English. They are not advice about your situation, reading them creates no attorney-client relationship, and the law differs from state to state and changes over time. For advice you can rely on, speak to a lawyer licensed in your state.

What it means

Emotional distress appears in injury law in two different ways, and confusing them is the commonest mistake. In an ordinary negligence claim for a physical injury, the mental suffering that accompanies it - fear, anxiety, depression, loss of enjoyment of life - is simply part of the general damages and needs no separate theory. The stand-alone claims are for distress caused without a physical injury to the plaintiff, and because the harm is invisible and easily asserted, the law hedges them with requirements it does not impose elsewhere.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress requires conduct that is extreme and outrageous - beyond all bounds of decency, not merely insulting, rude, unfair or hurtful - done intentionally or recklessly, causing severe emotional distress. Each element is demanding: courts decide as a threshold matter whether the conduct could reasonably be regarded as outrageous, and most workplace rudeness, hard bargaining, ordinary insults and the exercise of legal rights do not qualify, while sustained harassment, abuse of a known vulnerability, threats of violence, and mishandling of a dead body have. The distress must be severe, usually shown by its duration, intensity and effect on the plaintiff's life, and often, though not always, by treatment. Speech about public figures or matters of public concern is protected by the First Amendment even when it is outrageous.

Negligent infliction of emotional distress is recognised in most states but on terms that vary widely. The oldest rule requires a physical impact, however slight; most states have moved to a zone-of-danger rule under which a plaintiff who was placed in reasonable fear of immediate physical harm by the defendant's negligence may recover for the resulting distress; and many allow a bystander claim by a close relative who witnessed a serious injury or death to a family member at the scene, subject to requirements about presence, relationship and contemporaneous awareness. Some states require that the distress produce physical symptoms; others require only that it be serious and medically verifiable. A separate "direct victim" line applies where the defendant owed a duty specifically to the plaintiff's emotional well-being - a mortuary, a therapist, a laboratory that misreports a diagnosis. Claims for distress from property damage, from ordinary contract breaches and from the death of a pet are generally not allowed. Because the elements are so state-specific, whether a given situation supports any claim at all is a question for a lawyer in that state.

Where this comes from

Both torts are state common law. Intentional infliction is restated in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 and Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm § 46 (2012); the First Amendment limit is Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), and Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011). Negligent infliction is restated in Restatement (Third) §§ 47-48, with the bystander rule originating in Dillon v. Legg, 68 Cal. 2d 728 (1968), and tightened in Thing v. La Chusa, 48 Cal. 3d 644 (1989); the zone-of-danger rule as applied under a federal statute is Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Gottshall, 512 U.S. 532 (1994), and the direct-victim line is Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, 27 Cal. 3d 916 (1980), and Burgess v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. 4th 1064 (1992). Which rule a state follows, and whether physical manifestation is required, is that state's own.

When people hire a lawyer for this

A person who has suffered real psychological harm from someone's conduct should have a lawyer assess which theory, if any, fits the facts in their state before assuming a claim exists, because these torts are among the most frequently dismissed at the pleading stage. Where the distress accompanies a physical injury, no separate claim is needed and it should simply be documented as part of the damages. Treatment records matter in every version of the claim: a plaintiff who never sought help for the distress will be asked why, and a diagnosis from a treating professional is usually the most persuasive evidence there is.

Find a lawyer for this in your state

Choose your state. Each link opens the directory page for the city in that state with the most currently published law firms in this practice area; a +n beside the city is how many other cities in the state also have one. The list is generated when this page loads, so a state whose listings have lapsed drops out rather than becoming a dead link.

« All glossary terms

Part of the LawyerLand plain-English legal glossary. Definitions are written from primary sources - statutes and court rules - and each entry states the authority it rests on, or says plainly when the doctrine is state law with no national rule.

If you cannot afford a lawyer, civil legal aid programmes provide free help with many of these problems: civil legal aid programmes by state.

Related free reference tools: statute of limitations for a personal-injury claim, by state, quoted from each state's official text - part of LawyerLand's legal reference tools.