Taylor suffered a serious emotional distress, part of which was the fear for his and Mya’s life which led them to flee their home state of Massachusetts as a result of Murray’s continuous intimidations during four months. The issue in this case is whether Taylor has a claim against Murray for the intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress. Under Massachusetts law, the court will likely conclude that Taylor has a claim against Murray for his conduct toward Taylor because (A) Murray intentionally inflicted the emotional distress to Taylor; (B) Murray’s conduct was extreme and outrageous; (C) Murray’s conduct directly caused Taylor’s emotional distress; and (D) Taylor’s emotional distress was severe. See Agis v. Howard Johnson …show more content…
For instance, in April Murray intended to cause distress by threatening when he told Taylor, “People could get hurt” if Mya did not stop working on the manufacturing floor of Progress. Next, in June, during a strike of Local 718 against RT&G Trucking Co. Murray intended to cause mental anguish to Taylor by embarrassing him in front of his co-workers when he screamed, “… It will give you a reason to spend time with your scab wife. You should take advantage of the chance, because you never know what’s going to happen.” Like in George and in Agis, where defendant’s intent was to inflict emotional distress to make plaintiffs perform, Murray’s tactical harassments toward Taylor were done for the purpose of causing emotional distress to achieve Taylor’s cooperation with Local 718. Moreover, Murray sent Adrian to stalk and intimidate Taylor and Mya at the grocery store parking lot where he was visibly shaking from fear. Hence, Murray, more likely than not, knew that Taylor was already under the emotional distress and more threats would definitely cause Taylor more mental anguish. Like in Quinn, the actor’s knowledge would be enough to prove Taylor’s intent. Therefore, the court will probably find Murray’s purpose to cause Taylor’s emotional struggle and his subsequent knowledge of such result prove …show more content…
Cady, 729 N.E.2d at 1132. The Cadys had their home taken away during the winter by the sheriff, which caused them to suffer an emotional distress. Id. The jury found, without the medical expert testimony, that there would be no emotional distress if the defendant would not carry out his conduct. Id. Precisely, the court stated: “ . . . . the record itself speaks of the severe emotional distress caused by the wrongful attachment of the Cady’s property.” Id. In George, 268 N.E.2d at 916, the creditor’s harassments caused George’s mental anguish which directly resulted in the plaintiff’s two heart attacks and the court held the defendant liable for the emotional distress and the physical injuries caused directly by his conduct. In Quinn, 732 N.E.2d at 332, the case of a husband suing the lover of his wife for negligently inflicting an emotional distress on Quinn and his son by committing an adultery with his wife, the court stated that “[the] plaintiff’s emotional distress must follow ‘closely on the heels of’ the negligent act.”
 Here, like in Cady, if it was not for Murray’s repeated interrogations of Taylor, he would not suffer the mental distress. Taylor was shaken up and terrified after every incident with Murray. Like in George, the intensity of his distress increased after every interaction with Murray. Specifically, Taylor’s appetite decreased and he lost twenty