Harris v. Jones

Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1977 · Torts

TortsIIEDoutrageous conductsevere emotional distressstutteringintentional infliction of emotional distressIIEDextreme and outrageous conduct

Facts

Harris, a General Motors employee with a lifelong stutter, worked under supervisor Jones for part of 1975. Over about five months, Jones approached Harris more than 30 times and verbally and physically mimicked his stutter, and he also told Harris in a smart manner not to get nervous two or three times a week. Harris had long been under a physician's care for a nervous condition, admitted many things made him nervous, and saw his doctor once during the harassment, receiving pills for his nerves as he had before. Harris testified that he was shaken up, felt like hiding, and that his nervousness and speech impediment worsened.

Issue

Whether Maryland should recognize intentional infliction of emotional distress as an independent tort. If so, whether the evidence in this case was legally sufficient to support the jury's verdict for Harris, particularly on the requirement of severe emotional distress.

Rule

Intentional infliction of emotional distress is a recognized independent tort in Maryland. To recover, a plaintiff must prove: (1) the conduct was intentional or reckless; (2) the conduct was extreme and outrageous; (3) there was a causal connection between the conduct and the emotional distress; and (4) the emotional distress was severe. Severe emotional distress means a severely disabling emotional response; liability arises only when the distress is so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it, and the court must first determine whether the evidence could support such a finding.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Baltimore, supervisor Lena Ortiz repeatedly berated employee Devin Pike with cruel personal taunts over three months, intending to upset him. Devin testified that he felt humiliated, lost sleep for a few days after several incidents, and was "very upset," but he never sought treatment and continued his normal routine at work and home.

If Devin sues for intentional infliction of emotional distress, which is the strongest basis for a court to enter judgment against him as a matter of law?

Explanation. The majority recognized IIED as an independent tort requiring four elements: intentional or reckless conduct, extreme and outrageous conduct, causation, and severe emotional distress. Severe distress is not merely a damages issue; it is an element of liability. Vague testimony about humiliation, being upset, and short-term sleeplessness, without evidence of a severely disabling emotional response of substantial intensity or duration, is insufficient as a matter of law.