Does the statement of the tort itself, the intentional infliction of emotional distress, bring emotional distress within the ambit of the interests protected by the tort?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Marchand v. Superior Court (Sutter Community Hosp.), 200 Cal.App.3d 1121, 246 Cal.Rptr. 531 (Cal. App. 1988):
Though obvious, it bears emphasis that in Siliznoff the statement of the tort itself, the intentional infliction of emotional distress, brought emotional distress within the ambit of interests protected by the tort. "The statement of the duty [not to intentionally inflict emotional distress] contains a description of the effect to be avoided [such an infliction]." (Leamon v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 1409, 1416, fn 4, 235 Cal.Rptr. 912.) The
Page 538
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
