Articles Posted in Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

lawyer standing next to a gavel with the scale of justice behind himPersonal injury cases fall under the umbrella category of what is referred to as “tort law.” A tort is “an act or omission that gives rise to injury or harm to another and amounts to a civil wrong for which courts impose liability.”

Most personal injury cases are based on a negligence theory, claiming that the at-fault person failed to take reasonable care, thus leading to the accident. The at-fault person didn’t mean to cause the accident, it just sort of happened. The question then becomes whether the accident would have happened if they had been more careful.

But what happens when that person did something on purpose that caused the accident?

When most people think of personal injury lawsuits, they probably imagine that the plaintiff is suing to recover for physical injuries. While the vast majority of injuries for which most plaintiffs seek recovery are physical, not all of them are. Occasionally, a plaintiff has suffered from emotional injury so severe that he or she may be entitled to legal recovery. There are two situations in which a plaintiff may be able to recover for purely emotional damages with no corresponding physical damages. They are:

  • Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and
  • Negligent infliction of emotional distress (NEID)

In the summer of 2009, a man walked into an Old Navy store in downtown Chicago where his girlfriend worked, pulled out a gun, shot her to death, and then killed himself. Police called the incident a “domestic dispute.” Not only did Old Navy have to deal with the public relations nightmare the incident caused, the family of the murdered employee soon filed a lawsuit against the company. The suit alleges that the shooting could have been prevented and that store management knew of threats against the employee and failed to act. It also alleged that the store’s security measures were outdated because the boyfriend was able to enter the store through a private employee entrance and then gain access to a restricted employee area, where he committed the murder-suicide.

Incidents of workplace violence such as this one have become an increasingly problematic phenomenon in recent decades. According the bureau of Labor Statistics, 11,613 people were killed between 1992 and 2006 in incidents of workplace violence. On average, 1.7 million people are victims of violent crime while working or on duty in the United States every year, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) defines workplace violence as “any physical assault, threatening behavior, or verbal abuse occurring in the work setting.” The workplace can be any location “where an employee performs any work-related duty.” This includes buildings, parking lots, clients’ homes, and travel to and from work assignments.While it would seem that the blame for workplace violence would most naturally fall on the perpetrators, employers also face various legal liabilities when their employees or customers are victims.

There are several methods by which an employer can be held liable for incidents of workplace violence, outlined below.

Contact Information