Ginny Jones will most likely not be held liable for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress because, under Indiana’s definition of IIED, since her friendship with Suzy Ann wasn’t one of authority and the conduct of sharing secrets probably won’t be seen as beyond the bounds of common decency.
Indiana has adopted the Restatement (the Second) of Torts definition of intentional infliction of emotional distress: “one who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another is subject to liability for such emotional distress” Cullison, 570 N.E.2d at 27 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 (1965)).Since Suzy Ann can prove that Ginny intentionally and recklessly caused the severe emotional distress, this analysis will focus solely on whether or not the conduct can be considered “extreme” and “outrageous”. Extreme and outrageous conduct been adopted by the Indiana courts to mean “… where the conduct has been so …show more content…
The prevailing cultural norms of Indiana in regards to revealing secrets and creating drama on television among couples and friends can be seen by looking at the show itself. The facts that it is a national television show, frequented by at least 50 new audience members each weekday, each member of the audience purchases to see the “live” show, the guests on the show volunteer to participate, indicate that the exchange between Suzy Ann and Ginny is entertaining and acceptable. While, like the remarks in Bradley v. Hall, Ginny referenced the health and sexual acts of Suzy Ann which may be inappropriate, the nature of the show and the willingness of Suzy Ann, herself, to discuss an affair on television will probably cause a court to consider Ginny’s conduct, not outrageous and