Emotional Distress Case Study

I. Introduction
Our client, Shawn Kemp (“Kemp”) has filed suit against Janice Matier (“Janice”) alleging Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”). The suit is based on Janice’s unauthorized posting of our client’s personal information through the use of social media with a caption that posted GPS coordinates of Kemps house. Kemp alleges Janice’s Twitter post has caused him IIED. Janice’s conduct was not extreme and outrageous when she posted the picture, because her conduct was not atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Janice’s post did have a causal connection because Kemp’s distress is directly attributable to Janice’s conduct. Therefore, the court will likely hold that Janice’s conduct was not extreme and …show more content…
Under Maryland law to prove IIED four elements must be met: (1) an intentional or reckless act; (2) conduct that was extreme and outrageous; (3) a causal connection between the conduct and the emotional distress; (4) severe emotional distress. Figueiredo-Torres v. Nickel 321 Md. 642(Ct. of App. 1990). To prove conduct that was extreme and outrageous the plaintiff must show that (1) the conduct was so egregious in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency Moniodis v. Cook 64 Md. 1(Ct. of App. 1990). (2) The actor must have knowledge of peculiarly susceptible emotional distress. Kentucky Fried Chicken Nat’l Management Co. v. Weatersby, 607 A.2d 8 (Md.1992). (3) The actor cannot be a mere stranger. Kentucky Fried Chicken Nat’l Management Co. v. Weatersby, 607 A.2d 8 (Md.1992). To prove a causal connection between the conduct and the emotional distress plaintiff must have adequate evidence that distress is directly attributable to actor conduct. Moniodis v. Cook 64 Md. 1(Ct. of App. 1990). The distress does not have to be imminent. B.N. v K.K., 312 Md. 135( Ct. of App. 1987).The wrongful conduct and distress is apparent. Moniodis v. Cook 64 Md. 1(Ct. of App. 1990). This memorandum will only address conduct that was extreme and outrageous; a causal connection between the conduct and …show more content…
Kemp suffered emotional distress before the dinner due to his job. Kemp told Janice and Jodi about the Ramsey case, the long hours, the death threats, and how he thought about leaving the D.A.’s office but stuck it out for the case. Kemp used the dinner to feel normal because he suffered distress from the Ramsey case. Janice posting the picture was not causal connection between the conduct and the emotional distress. Therefore, the court will hold Janice posting the picture on social media was not a causal connection between her conduct and Kemp’s emotional