finding severe emotional distress given that the plaintiff suffered severe and permanent injuries to *110mind and body including, involuntary body tremors, cold sweats, hysteria, muscular pain, hyperventilation, depression, and a traumatized psyche as a direct and proximate result of defendants actions
How later courts described this case
- finding severe emotional distress given that the plaintiff suffered severe and permanent injuries to *110mind and body including, involuntary body tremors, cold sweats, hysteria, muscular pain, hyperventilation, depression, and a traumatized psyche as a direct and proximate result of defendants actions
- holding that a question of fact existed regarding the outrageousness of the defendants’ conduct when the plaintiff alleged that they had caused noisemakers to be placed in plaintiff’s workspace that created a “loud, piercing, and unbearable” noise “every minute of every day” for nine months
- finding severe emotional distress because the plaintiff suffered severe and permanent injuries to mind and body including, involuntary body tremors, cold sweats, hysteria, muscular pain, hyperventilation, depression, and a traumatized psyche
- concluding that a university’s inaction in response to an employee intentionally causing a co-worker severe physical and mental injuries did not constitute outrageous conduct
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
REID, Associate Judge,
concurring:
I view this as a very, very close case. Ms. Larijani’s complaint is quite “thin” regarding the elements of an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. The matter comes to us, however, on a Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Given the legal principles that govern our review of the denial of such motions, as identified by Judge Schwelb, I am compelled to agree that, in essence, Ms. Lari-jani’s complaint is minimally sufficient to survive the motion to dismiss.