The fact pattern given involves multiple parties and presents multiple issues/claims. The
first major issue presented involves the teacher in the classroom and the principal. While
teaching her classroom of ten children, the principal enters the room and tells the teacher that
her husband was involved in an accident and was at the hospital in critical condition. The teacher
leaves her classroom to go to the hospital. When she arrives at the hospital, however, she finds
that her husband was not there, and aer calling his cell phone, the teacher finds that her
husband is safe and sound at home. It turns out that the principal had lied to the teacher
because he was mad that she had rejected his advances for a date. In these facts, the teacher
may have a claim against the principal for any emotional distress she may have su”ered as a
result of the principal lying. In torts, there are two types of claims that can be asserted for
emotional distress: (1) intentional in’iction of emotional distress; and (2) negligent in’iction of
emotional distress. A claim for negligent in’iction of emotional distress is similar to intentional
in’iction of emotional distress, but only requires showing of negligence rather than intent. A
cause of action for negligent in’iction of emotional distress consists of (1) a duty of care owed by
the defendant to the plainti”, (2) breach of that duty by the defendant resulting in severe
emotional su”ering and (3) actual and proximate causation of severe emotional distress. The key
aspect for a claim in negligent in‘iction of emotional distress is that physical injury or illness is
necessary for recovery under this claim. If there is a physical injury, then the damages for the
attendant’s emotional distress are recoverable as part of the physical injury. If there is a physical
impact to the plainti”, which does not cause actual physical injury, but is followed by emotional
distress, then damages are allowed for such emotional distress. If there is not physical impact,
but the plainti” su”ers physical disorders, like shock to the nervous system, then damages are
available for the emotional and mental su”ering. Finally, if there is no impact, and the plainti”
does not su”er any physical disorders but su”ers emotional distress, then no recovery is
Chokshi 1
permitted. The teacher will likely lose if she tried to assert a claim against the principal for
negligent in‘iction of emotional distress. As stated above, the key element that the teacher must
prove for a claim of negligent in’iction of emotional distress is some type of physical disorder,
even if just shock to the nervous system. The facts that were given made no mention of any
physical ailment su”ered by the teacher. However, all hope is not lost for the teacher as she
could very well bring a claim for the intentional in’iction of emotional distress against the
principal. A cause of action for intentional in‘iction of emotional distress consists of (1)
outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention to cause emotional distress (or reckless
disregard of the likelihood to cause emotional distress), (2) severe emotional su”ering and (3)
actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress. In other words, to assert a claim for
intentional in’iction of emotional distress, the defendant must have purposefully acted in an
extreme and outrageous manner and thereby causes the plainti” to su”er severe emotional
