[D]oes such an assertion of a deliberate disturbance of emotional equanimity state an independent cause of action in tort?
Torts I, Pages 58–60
Slocum v. Food Fair Stores of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida, 1958
Facts:
Plaintiff asked defendant's employee for help in finding the price of an item. The employee told her, "[Y]ou'll have to find out the best way you can . . . you stink to me." This aggravated plaintiff's pre-existing heart condition and caused her to have a heart attack.
Procedural History:
Trial court dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Issue:
Notes:
"Equanimity" means: "mental calmness, composure, and evenness of temper, especially in a difficult situation"
Basically just whether defendant's employee's language was enough for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Rules:
Restatement § 46 makes a blanket provision for liability on the part of "one, who, without a privilege to do so, intentionally causes severe emotional distress to another." Intention exists "when the act is done for the purpose of causing the distress or with knowledge . . . that severe emotional distress is substantially certain to be produced by [such] conduct."
Page 59, Paragraph 2Language must be likely to cause "severe emotional distress," not mere "emotional distress."
Conduct must be outrageous.
Explanation:
The test is: Is it so severe that a person of ordinary sensibilities suffer intentional infliction of emotional distress?
Reasoning:
While some extend intentional infliction of emotional distress to cover those with a correlative duty of courtesy, there's no reason to extend it to business invitees generally.
Holding:
No, defendant's employee's language was not substantially certain to cause severe emotional distress. Affirmed.