Class 3

False Imprisonment and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: Liberty and a Catchall

Thus far, we have focused on torts that protect interests in bodily integrity and dignity. Our next two intentional torts deal with quite different interests. False imprisonment involves an individual’s liberty to move around freely as she wishes. But this matter is not as simple as it may seem. When does someone truly surrender her liberty to someone else versus making a conscious decision to stay put? What kind of coercion is enough to take an individual’s liberty away? Moral? Economic? Psychological?

Our final intentional tort, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), may be the most controversial. Some courts hesitated to recognize it at all or imposed strict limits on when it could be brought. IIED applies to “extreme or outrageous” behavior that produces severe emotional harm. IIED has power partly because it often comes up when no other tort clearly seems relevant—but when real harm has unquestionably occurred. Everything from hate speech to sexual harassment can give rise to an IIED claim. But therein lies the controversy: courts have a hard time drawing proper boundaries for IIED claims and worry that the tort may at times be stretched to its breaking point.

This book, and all H2O books, are Creative Commons licensed for sharing and re-use with the exception of certain excerpts. Any excerpts from the Restatements of the Law, Principles of the Law, and the Model Penal Code are copyright by The American Law Institute. Excerpts are reproduced with permission, not as part of a Creative Commons license.