Another brief

I can't seem to get the issue for this brief.

Harris v Jones
Court of Appeals of Maryland, 197

Procedure: Claim for emotional distress. Harris is the plaintiff. Jones is the defendant. At the trial court the plaintiff won and was awarded 3,500 compensatory damages and 15,000 punitive damages. This was reversed by the court of special appeals.

Issue: Is insults and mockery enough to severe emotional distress?

Facts: The plaintiff has stuttered his whole life. The defendant mimicked and general mocked the plaintiff stuttering. This made the plaintiff was “shaken up” and felt “like going in a hole and hiding”. The plaintiff asked to be transferred to another department and was refused. The defendant called him a troublemaker and chastised him for repeating talking to his committeeman, a person who handles employee grievances. The plaintiff was under the care of a doctor for a nervous condition for six years prior to the commencement of the defendant’s harassment. Many things made the plaintiff nervous like “bosses” not just the defendant. The plaintiff said that defendants the harassment increased how nervous he was and worsened his speech impediment, at one point it got so bad his doctor had to give him pill to calm his nerves. The plaintiff had problems with other people at work both supervisors and normal staff.

Holding: no, insulting someone does not cause severe emotional distress. The action must be more extreme.

Party’s arguments
Plaintiff argues- The defendant often intentionally insulted and mocked the plaintiff to the point that his was given pills by his doctor to calm down his nerves.
Defendant argues- the plaintiff was had emotional problems before me and many people mocked him what the defendant did was not extreme but the norm.

Disposition of the case: Judgment affirmed , cost to be paid by appellant. The defendant won.

Reasoning To successfully have a case for emotionally distress one must fulfill fore elements
1. The conduct must be intentional or reckless
2. the conduct must be extreme and outrageous
3. there must be a causal connection between the wrongful conduct and the emotional distress.
4. the emotional distress must be severe
The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to prove the 4th requirment for emotional distress torts. The plaintiff had other problems than just the defendants harassment was not enough to prove that he caused server distress.


Rule of law: In determining whether conduct is extreme and outrages, it should not be considered in a sterile setting. What is extreme language is different for a sailor or a lady.