Questions Presented
Hudson, while working in regular office hours, was gravely disturbed by Schrute’s test of “emergency preparedness” simulating a fire in the office. Under Rule 12.02(6) of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, which determines intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) as an act outrageous in its nature capable of causing serious mental injury. Will this statute implement Schrute as liable for issuing a fire simulation?
Short Answers
Yes. Schrute will most likely be liable for the actions of the event under IIED. Intentionally action in a reckless manner will most likely be determined as outrageous in conduct.
Summary of the Facts
Schrute, a Dunder Mifflin employee, independently started different activities with intention of creating chaos or confusion in the office. He began by blocking off essential doorways, inserting a key in a door and breaking it off. Schrute also inserted small wooden blocks into the bottom section of the doors, blocking-off access. Schrute, heated the door handles using a fire torch creating a hypothetical presence …show more content…
Halliburton, the court explains the necessary humane situations in which we strive or cause mental discomfiture. A case about an older lady being unable to enter he property because of her neighbor’s inconsiderate attitude and constant outrageous conduct. The court addressed the terms of causing mental injury by stating, “only where mental discomfiture becomes extreme does legal liability arise… complete emotional tranquility is seldom attainable in this world.” Rector v. Willbanks, 8 S.W. 3d 607 (Tenn. 1999) at 7. Hudson, in this case, deserved this mental tranquility which was negated by the outrageous conduct directed by Schrute.
This legal issue is sufficiently backed therefore making it extremely difficult to see other wise. The court will most likely adhere to this reasoning due to the amount of specificity and clarity case law provides for serious mental