Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
In Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. McCarson, 467 So. 2d 277, 278 (Fla. 1985), the Florida Supreme Court held that Florida recognizes the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress as defined in § 46, Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965). “To state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, a complaint must allege four elements: (1) deliberate or reckless infliction of mental suffering; (2) outrageous conduct; (3) the conduct caused the emotional distress; and (4) the distress was severe.” Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Steadman, 968 So. 2d 592, 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (citation omitted).
It is important to note that infliction of emotional distress is the only tort classified as intentional even though the tort-feasor may not have acted with specific intent. In other words, the cause of action not only “applies where the actor desires to inflict severe emotional distress, and also where he knows that such distress is certain, or substantially certain, to result from his conduct. It applies also where he acts recklessly . . . in deliberate disregard of a high degree of probability that the emotional distress will follow.” E. Airlines, Inc. v. King, 557 So. 2d 574, 576 (Fla. 1990) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 cmt. i (1965)).
“Reckless disregard is the equivalent of intent.” Williams v. City of Minneola, 575 So. 2d 683, 692 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). “That is crucial to our holding in which we recognize a tort classified as ‘intentional’ rather than ‘negligent’ even though the tort-feasor may not have any intention of harming anyone.” Id. “The viability of a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is highly fact-dependent and turns on the sum of the allegations in the specific case at bar.” Johnson v. Thigpen, 788 So. 2d 410, 414 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).
“Whether the conduct is outrageous enough to rise to the level required by the tort may be decided as a question of law when the facts of a case can under no conceivable interpretation support the tort, but where significant facts are disputed, or where differing inferences could reasonably be derived from undisputed facts, the question of outrageousness is for the jury to decide.” Williams, 575 So. 2d at 692 (citations omitted).
In other words, “[w]here reasonable men may differ, it is for the jury, subject to the control of the court, to determine whether, in the particular case, the conduct has been sufficiently extreme and outrageous to result in liability.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 cmt. h (1965). “The appropriateness of factfinders determining what is ‘outrageous’ is supported by our statement . . . that the standard of outrageousness set out in . . . the Restatement is almost impossible to apply in any consistent way essentially because outrageousness is a not only highly subjective, but also an extremely mutable trait.” Williams, 575 So. 2d at 692 (quotation omitted).
In Williams v. City of Minneola, 575 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), a fourteen year old boy died of an apparent drug overdose. Police officers considered it possible that the death resulted from suicide or foul play. Id. at 685. During the boy’s autopsy, police officers took photographs and videotaped the procedure to assist in the investigation of the death. Id. at 686. The next evening, several officers viewed the photographs and video at the house of one of the officers. Id. A newspaper article was published, which described the viewing “as having taken place in a party atmosphere where the audience joked and laughed.” Id. The boy’s mother and sister sued on various theories, including intentional infliction of emotional distress. Id. The trial court granted summary judgment in the defendant’s favor. Id.
On appeal, the Court noted that “[s]everal Florida cases have held that even where the requisite outrageousness occurred in the defendant’s acts toward the original victim, the emotional distress felt by close relatives of that victim when they learned of the acts was not actionable if the relatives were not present during the acts and the defendant’s conduct was not directed at the relatives.” Williams, 575 So. 2d at 694.
The Court reasoned that, those opinions did not involve death or dead bodies and so “did not call into operation the unique considerations which apply in such cases.” Williams, 575 So. 2d at 694. The Court held that: “a cause of action in tort for reckless infliction of emotional distress can lie for outrageous conduct involving pictures of the dead body of a plaintiff’s spouse, child, sibling or parent, even though the plaintiff was not present at the display of the pictures and the allegedly tortious conduct did not physically impact the plaintiff, whether or not the emotional distress in turn caused physical harm to the plaintiff.” Id. at 690.