California Jury Instruction CACI 1600 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress – Essential Factual Elements

New September 2003

Nakase Wade | California Business Lawyers & Corporate Lawyers

CACI Nos. 1602–1604, regarding the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress, should be given with this instruction.

Depending on the facts of the case, a plaintiff could choose one or both of the bracketed choices in element 2.

•“A cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress exists when there is ‘(1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff’s suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant’s outrageous conduct.’ A defendant’s conduct is ‘outrageous’ when it is so ‘extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community.’ And the defendant’s conduct must be ‘intended to inflict injury or engaged in with the realization that injury will result.’ ” (Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1050–1051 [95 Cal.Rptr.3d 636, 209 P.3d 963])

•“[T]he trial court initially determines whether a defendant’s conduct may reasonably be regarded as so extreme and outrageous as to permit recovery. Where reasonable men can differ, the jury determines whether the conduct has been extreme and outrageous to result in liability. Otherwise stated, the court determines whether severe emotional distress can be found; the jury determines whether on the evidence it has, in fact, existed.” (Plotnik v. Meihaus (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1590, 1614 [146 Cal.Rptr.3d 585].)

•“ ‘[I]t is generally held that there can be no recovery for mere profanity, obscenity, or abuse, without circumstances of aggravation, or for insults, indignities or threats which are considered to amount to nothing more than mere annoyances.’ ” (Yurick v. Superior Court (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1116, 1128 [257 Cal.Rptr. 665], internal citations omitted.)

•“Liability for IIED does not extend to ‘ “ ‘mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities.’ ” ’ Malicious or evil purpose is not essential to liability for IIED.” (Crouch v. Trinity Christian Center of Santa Ana, Inc. (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 995, 1007 [253 Cal.Rptr.3d 1], internal citations omitted.)

•“It is not enough that the conduct be intentional and outrageous. It must be conduct directed at the plaintiff, or occur in the presence of a plaintiff of whom the defendant is aware.” (Christensen v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 868, 903–904 [2 Cal.Rptr.2d 79, 820 P.2d 181].)

•“A requirement of a special relationship does not appear in the California Supreme Court’s formulation of the elements of IIED. To recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must prove a special relationship with the defendant but [the plaintiff] sought recovery for intentional infliction, for which proof of a special relationship is not required.” (Crouch, supra, 39 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1009–1010.)

•“Severe emotional distress [is] emotional distress of such substantial quantity or enduring quality that no reasonable man in a civilized society should be expected to endure it.” (Fletcher v. Western Life Insurance Co. (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 376, 397 [89 Cal.Rptr. 78].)

•“ ‘The law limits claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress to egregious conduct toward plaintiff proximately caused by defendant.’ The only exception to this rule is that recognized when the defendant is aware, but acts with reckless disregard of, the plaintiff and the probability that his or her conduct will cause severe emotional distress to that plaintiff. Where reckless disregard of the plaintiff’s interests is the theory of recovery, the presence of the plaintiff at the time the outrageous conduct occurs is recognized as the element establishing a higher degree of culpability which, in turn, justifies recovery of greater damages by a broader group of plaintiffs than allowed on a negligent infliction of emotional distress theory.” (Christensen, supra, 54 Cal.3d at pp. 905–906, internal citations omitted.)