Talk:Intentional infliction of emotional distress
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale. | |
Is there a seperate definition of extreme and outrageous? —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:24.37.254.111 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 18 November 2006
Which states accept this tort? —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:147.226.204.44 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 29 November 2006
- Please sign comments on talkpages. Legis 13:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
That's getting on to what I was about to say. The article is ambiguous on where in the world this law applies. First it talks of English law, then it makes a few references to the US. We need to sort out which jurisdictions define this as a legal wrong in some form or another, and make the article clear about it. Maybe we should use sections for different places' handling of it, as has been done for many things in Wikipedia. There may also be instances where the same or a similar offence is defined by law but not with the same name - we shouldn't forget these. -- Smjg 21:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- The law of IIED was developed at the turn of the 20th century, when justices began to look less and less at the various former colonies. It has expanded significantly and independently, and so it can look much different from country to country and even state to state in the US. The development of this tort is related to the compensation for pain and suffering as you can see from the early English court quotations. Therein lies the controversy: how do you measure damages? The terms IIED and NIED are the standard terms taught in all 1st year law schools in the US. Early English cases are taught because of the influence English law had on the early legal systems of the various colonies. From reading early Harvard Law Review articles on the subject, I found that American law and English law were highly influential of each other on this subject when it was developing. The article is very general as it stands; to get more specific is an extensive task. For instance, in some US states, courts have allowed recovery for former patients who were seduced by their caregiver. In most if not all US jurisdictions, the tort of seduction has been eliminated; however, courts have allowed a claim of IIED on the basis of both the fiduciary relationship between doctor and patient and the specific psychological phenomenon known as transference (developed by Freud). Unfortunately, the article is somewhat different from various treatises on the subject, and the lack of quotations makes certain sections dubious at best. Legis Nuntius 19:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Which country does this apply to?
As someone from the UK it was not clear which country this and other legal articles apply to. Only until I saw "New York" a long way down the page did it become clear that it was about the US. Would it not be sensible to split these articles up into sections: first international law, then similarities and differences between different countries, then the law in country A, then in country B, then country C etc. 80.0.97.19 (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- This tort isn't about the U.S. In "Rationale for classification," which I believe may have originally been termed "history" it states, "A change first occurred in the Irish courts which repudiated the English railroad decision." This obviously does not have much to do with U.S. courts. The U.S. first adopted the English reasoning of Railways Commissioners v. Coultas 12 A.C. 222(1888) in Lehman v. Brooklyn City Railroad Co. 47 Hun (NY) 355 (1888). This is in note number 1 of the article. In a way, the article is already divided in accordance with the structure you suggested. First, there is no international tort law here. Private wrongs against the person will follow the domestic laws of the forum state according to international law. A discussion of the Alien Torts Claims Act in this article would be off topic. It would have to be included in every tort article on wikipedia. The article discusses how the tort came into being and its rapid acceptance in Ireland, England, and the U.S. If you read the contract article, you will see the case Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company. This is an English case which is taught in Australian, Canadian, English, and American law schools. It is common for common law countries to study the same cases because we share a common legal tradition. If a case is from the 19th century or earlier, chances are that it will give a description of the legal rule in more general terms that is applicable to several countries. Finally, this article discusses how the tort works in specific jurisdictions. It may be misleading to some for an article to begin by discussing a legal topic as a common law subject, but I think that it is unnecessary to explain that common law topics are common among common law nations. Legis Nuntius (talk) 06:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
