Most people associate personal injury law with physical harm like broken bones, car accidents, medical malpractice, or slip-and-fall injuries.
But some of the most devastating injuries a person can suffer are entirely invisible. They live inside the mind, erode the ability to function normally, and can be just as disabling as any physical trauma.
The tort of outrage, more formally known as intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) is the legal remedy for when someone deliberately or recklessly subjects you to conduct so extreme and outrageous that the law treats it as a compensable injury.
So let’s go through what the tort of outrage is, what you must prove to succeed in an IIED claim, how courts evaluate the severity of conduct, what kinds of compensation are available, and where this claim comes up most often in personal injury cases.
What Is the Tort of Outrage?
The tort of outrage is a civil cause of action that allows a person to seek damages when another party’s intentional or reckless conduct was so extreme, so atrocious, and so far beyond the bounds of decency that it caused severe emotional distress.
The claim does not require any physical contact or physical injury, though physical symptoms of emotional distress can support and strengthen the case.
The doctrine is codified in the Restatement (Second) of Torts at Section 46, which defines it as intentional or reckless conduct that is extreme and outrageous and causes severe emotional distress.
Courts across the United States adopted this formulation, though they apply it with varying degrees of strictness. Some jurisdictions call it intentional infliction of emotional distress, while others use the older term tort of outrage.
The two phrases describe the same legal claim.
The Four Elements of an IIED Claim
To succeed in a tort of outrage claim, you must establish four elements:
1. Extreme and Outrageous Conduct
This is the threshold element, and courts apply it with a demanding standard. It is not enough that the defendant’s conduct was rude, offensive, or even cruel. The Restatement sets the bar at conduct that exceeds all possible bounds of decency, is atrocious, and is utterly intolerable in a civilized community.
Courts have famously stated that the conduct must be so outrageous in character that an average member of the community would look at it and say it was outrageous.
This element weeds out claims involving ordinary insults, rudeness, bad manners, and the everyday indignities of life. Not everything that upsets you qualifies. Courts expect people to be emotionally resilient in the face of minor slights.
The tort of outrage is reserved for conduct that goes dramatically beyond that.
2. Intentional or Reckless State of Mind
The defendant must have either intended to cause severe emotional distress or must have acted with reckless disregard for the substantial probability that their conduct would cause it.
Negligent or accidental infliction of emotional distress is a different and generally more limited claim. IIED requires deliberate, gross or reckless behavior.
Recklessness in this context means the defendant was aware of the high probability that their conduct would cause severe emotional distress and proceeded anyway, not caring about that outcome.
A person who makes repeated harassing phone calls to a grieving parent, knowing the impact it will have, may satisfy this element even if they claim they did not intend the distress they caused.
3. Causation
There must be a direct causal link between the defendant’s extreme conduct and the plaintiff’s emotional distress. The defendant’s behavior must be the actual and proximate cause of the harm.
Courts will look at the nature of the conduct, the context in which it occurred, and the plaintiff’s reaction to it.
4. Severe Emotional Distress
The emotional distress must be severe as minor upset, temporary anxiety, or garden-variety embarrassment does not qualify. Courts look for distress that is so substantial or enduring that no reasonable person could be expected to simply endure it.
Severe emotional distress may be demonstrated through evidence of psychiatric treatment, documented anxiety or depression diagnoses, sleep disturbances, inability to work or maintain normal relationships, weight loss, and physical manifestations of psychological harm.
Many successful IIED plaintiffs present testimony from treating mental health professionals or psychologists who can explain the nature and severity of the emotional harm in clinical terms.
Real-World Instances of the Tort of Outrage
1. Harassment During the Death of a Loved One
A family buries their child after a tragic accident. A third party, having learned of the funeral details, shows up at the graveside to film and mock the grieving family and then proceed to send the recordings to the family repeatedly along with taunting messages about the dead child.
The conduct is not physically violent, but it is deliberately cruel, targeted at people in their most vulnerable moment, and calculated to cause the maximum possible emotional harm.
Courts have found conduct fitting this pattern to constitute the tort of outrage.
2. Workplace Abuse Targeting a Vulnerable Employee
A supervisor, knowing that an employee suffers from anxiety disorder, repeatedly and publicly demeans her in front of coworkers, accuses her of crimes she did not commit, and orchestrates a months-long campaign of intimidation that results in her hospitalization for a mental health crisis.
While not every difficult workplace situation meets the IIED standard, a sustained, deliberate pattern of abuse targeting a known vulnerability has been found to satisfy the extreme and outrageous element in a number of jurisdictions.
3. False Report to Child Protective Services
Someone files knowingly false reports with child protective services against their neighbor, fabricating detailed allegations of child abuse. The neighbor’s children are removed from the home pending investigation, the parent loses their job when the reports become public, and they suffer a documented psychological breakdown.
Courts in several states have allowed IIED claims where a defendant knowingly filed false reports that caused devastating consequences to the plaintiff, treating the deliberate filing of false accusations as conduct meeting the outrageous standard.
4. Debt Collection Abuse
A debt collector places dozens of calls a day to a person who has clearly communicated their situation, uses obscene and threatening language, calls family members and employers with false information about alleged debts, and continues the campaign after receiving a cease-and-desist letter.
Courts have found that certain extreme debt collection tactics rise to the level of the tort of outrage, particularly when they are sustained, deliberate, and target financially and emotionally vulnerable individuals.
Tort of Outrage in Personal Injury Cases
IIED claims frequently arise alongside traditional personal injury claims.
After a serious accident, for example, if an insurance adjuster engages in a deliberate campaign of bad faith, including fabricating evidence to deny a legitimate claim, threatening the victim, or making cruel and public accusations about the plaintiff’s honesty, the plaintiff may have both a bad faith insurance claim and an IIED claim arising from the same course of conduct.
IIED also arises in assault and battery cases where the physical attack was accompanied by extreme psychological terror, in sexual harassment cases where the conduct was deliberately aimed at causing emotional breakdown, in wrongful death cases where the defendant’s conduct before or after a fatal incident was uniquely cruel, and in cases of defamation accompanied by deliberately harmful dissemination.
States That Recognize the Tort of Outrage
The tort of outrage is recognized in all 50 U.S. states in some form, though courts in some states apply the standard more strictly than others. A sampling of state recognition:
- California: California courts recognize IIED and require proof of all four elements. California courts have applied the doctrine in employment, personal, and medical contexts.
- Texas: Texas recognizes the tort of outrage and has applied it in cases involving debt collection, employment abuse, and deliberate emotional cruelty. Texas courts emphasize that the defendant’s conduct must be truly outrageous and not merely insensitive.
- New York: New York allows IIED claims and applies a demanding standard. New York courts have acknowledged that the bar for outrageous conduct is intentionally high.
- Florida: Florida recognizes IIED and has allowed claims in employment harassment, insurance bad faith, and cases involving the deliberate exploitation of vulnerable plaintiffs.
- Illinois: Illinois courts follow the Restatement formulation closely and have addressed IIED in employment and personal injury contexts.
- Washington: Washington state specifically uses the term tort of outrage and has produced substantial case law defining its elements.
Damages Available in a Tort of Outrage Claim
Damages in an IIED claim can be substantial. Compensatory damages typically include the cost of psychiatric and psychological treatment, lost income caused by the emotional disturbance, diminished earning capacity, and compensation for pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life.
In cases where the defendant’s conduct was particularly deliberate and malicious, courts in many states permit awards of punitive damages, which are designed to punish the wrongdoer.
Because emotional distress damages are inherently subjective, juries play a large role in evaluating IIED claims. Compelling testimony from mental health professionals, evidence of the plaintiff’s functional limitations, and a clear narrative of the defendant’s course of conduct all matter significantly.
The Bystander IIED Claim
Some states also recognize IIED claims by bystanders who witness extreme and outrageous conduct directed at a close family member.
If you witnessed the deliberate, extreme mistreatment of your child, parent, or spouse and suffered severe emotional distress as a result, you may have a claim even though the conduct was not directed at you personally.
The Restatement (Second) of Torts addresses this scenario, and courts in states such as California, Texas, and Washington have recognized bystander IIED claims in appropriate circumstances.