TTTBE #14: Daylight Savings Time-inspired Super Super Early Answer for Patrons (Patreon)

This was a question involving the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).  In the hypothetical, a psychopath tortures the plaintiff's father outside of the plaintiff's presence, which is obviously distressing, and the plaintiff suffers (as you might imagine) extreme distress that requires medical treatment.  Can the plaintiff successfully sue for IIED?

The answer to the question was (A) -- that likely, no, the plaintiff will not be able to sue for IIED because he was not present when the torture took place.  As a general rule, a third party plaintiff must be present at the "extreme and outrageous" conduct to be able to sue for IIED.  See, e.g., Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46(2).

However, as we discuss on the upcoming show, there is some suggestion in the modern case law that may loosen the presence requirement.  See, e.g., Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 515 F.Supp.2d 25 (D.D.C. 2007).  So if you answered "B" -- yes, the plaintiff will be able to sue because the activity was outrageous and shocking -- you can give yourself at least half a point.

"C" (no, because the perpetrator did not know that the father had immediate family members) and "D" (yes, because there's strict liability in cases of torture) are bad answers, and if you chose them, you should feel bad.

Thomas answered "A" and thus got this question correct, and is now 8-for-14 (57%) and is inching his way back towards a low pass.

Stay tuned for another new question when Question #15 drops along with Friday's Epsiode 52.  Here's a secret:  Question #15 is about victim witness identification, something we haven't discussed on the show yet!

As always, we hope you enjoyed playing along with TTTBE.  Please keep playing!