TO: Supervising Attorney
FROM:
RE: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress—Legal memo
DATE: 12/15/15

FACTS
On October 2, Jack Dee walked into a Kindergarten classroom at Hickory Elementary School dressed as a monster. His intent was to scare the children of the classroom. He ran into the classroom yelling, “You rotten kids have all been behaving very badly, and now I’m going to eat all of you!” Our client Rosa Lemon has sued. Rosa’s daughter, Sara, has had emotional outbursts caused by fear, loss of sleep and appetite.

RULE
Intentional infliction of emotional distress requires (1) defendant must act intentionally or reckless; (2) defendant conduct must be extreme; (3) conduct must be the cause of severe emotional distress. Facts must be met in order for intentional infliction to exist.

ISSUE
Did Jack Dee intend to cause emotional distress to the children of Hickory Elementary School?

ANALYISIS
If Jack Dee intended to cause severe emotional distress, this is a statement of fact, not opinion. Crucial elements of the tort of emotional distress exist, and Rosa Lemon may win in court.
Jack Dee did of the following: 1. Jack Dee dressed as a monster and walked into a kindergarten classroom at Hickory Elementary School. 2. Sara Lemon has suffered loss of sleep and appetite, and numerous emotional outbursts at school, in fear the monster will return.
Jack Dee will argue that he did not believe him walking into a kindergarten classroom, dressed as a monster, would terrify the children to the extent of developing emotional distress. Thus, the matter of him hatching this plan to scare the children is an opinion, and cannot constitute emotional distress. Some people may differ on the opinion that, dressing as a monster, would or wouldn’t terrify young children. Common sense would say that a small child is more vulnerable to being scared of someone dressed as a monster, as opposed to someone that is much older.

Jack Dee’s second assertion will be that he did not know he would cause emotional distress to Sara. He can state that he dressed as a monster to frighten all the children. He did not know that Sara would be in the kindergarten class. Therefore, he did not directly target Sara. This would show that he did not intentionally target her, and he did not know this incident would affect her how it has.
The court case of Sutton v. Patrick 99 StateX 1206 (1989) stated that in a similar case, the court dismissed a claim for infliction of emotional distress. The child in this case suffered 3-4 emotional outbursts over 3-4 days, but this did not constitute severe emotional distress. This can be used by Jack as an emotional defense, if the opposing side can prove Sara did not suffer severe emotional distress.
Our client can counter argue that Sara, being a young child, would be more prone to severe distress due to her age. For example, a 5 year old would not react in this situation the way a 12 year old might. This counter argument can be seen in the case of Hagler v. Conroy, 109 StateX 143 (1999). In this case the child was 11, and was approached by a female claiming to be a zombie. The court noted that had the child been younger, then the defendant’s conduct would have risen to the level of extreme and outrageous.
A judge or jury is likely to consider the age of our client’s daughter, and the fact that the defendant acted out on this idea knowing the children were young and therefore more vulnerable to bouts of nightmares and other related issues to cause stress and anxiety.

CONCLUSION
Rosa Lemon’s assertion of Jack Dee’s intentional emotional distress upon Sara appears true and factual. There are certain areas that can be debated, but a judge or jury is likely to consider the age of our clients daughter, and the fact that the customer acted out on this idea knowing the children were young. This shows that the second tort of emotional distress exists.