Emotional Distress

            Emotional distress, for the most part, is seen as a frivolous argument for greedy money diggers. The concept of emotional distress is so vague and ambiguous that almost any argument could possibly qualify for a case. The case could be made for anything from being witness to an auto accident to anguish from loss of standing in the community. Emotional distress is a common occurrence, an everyday thing, and the really trivial cases overshadow those that incur extreme emotional distress. However, suits for emotional distress of any kind should not be allowed. Cases trying to recover damages for emotional distress or the negligent infliction thereof should be thrown out due to the facts that no one is to blame for accidental occurrences, the definition of emotional distress is too vague, and the money received will not completely correct the problems.

            Many cases claiming the negligent infliction of emotional distress can be dismissed for ambiguities. One example being who to blame for the negligence in a catastrophe that causes emotional distress, assuming such a thing can be defined. The case Portee v. Jaffee illustrates this example. In the case, the plaintiff’s son was trapped between an elevator and the shaft wall and she watched her son die as police, whose request for a mechanic from the elevator company apparently went unheeded, tried to free him. After the death, the plaintiff suffered from severe depression and became suicidal (Behrens, 161). The plaintiff has a case for the infliction of emotional distress; she could almost definitely prove that she suffered severe distress as an effect from what she witnessed. Who is responsible, however, is a much tougher question. Is the elevator company responsible? They failed to send a mechanic to the scene, but it cannot be necessarily determined that the mechanic’s presence would have helped save the child. Maybe the company is negligent for designing an elevator where the child could find a way to get himself into the position that he got into. It could be determined that the building inspector or the state is negligent for allowing the elevator. The owners of the building could possibly be liable for having an elevator. None of these arguments are clear-cut; no one person or group can be directly responsible for the incident. The only thing that could be determined as directly responsible for the emotional distress is the elevator itself, and I do not think that the elevator will be able to pay the damages requested. Suppose a person suffered emotion distress from watching the Twin Towers collapse on television. Who is responsible for the infliction of emotional distress? Is it the terrorists, the building contractors, the architects, the airlines, or the television stations? Arguments could be made for all, but it cannot be truly determined which is at fault for negligence. There can be no case if there is no defined perpetrator of negligence. Another problem with certain negligent infliction of emotional distress cases deals with suits based on emotional distress caused by what ­could have happened. In the case Barnhill v. Davis, the plaintiff witnessed an accident involving his mother and the defendant and wants damages for the emotional distress from worrying for his mother’s safety as caused by the accident. The mother was determined not to have suffered any serious physical injuries (Behrens, 160). The plaintiff is suing based on the argument that he is worried about what could have happened to his mother in the accident. He knows that she has no serious injuries from it, but still suffers distress from imagining what could have been. Can someone be liable for something that did not happen outside of someone’s mind? Suppose, for example, that I fail to stop before entering a crosswalk and there is a pedestrian standing fifty yards away who witness my crime. Let us say that the pedestrian obsesses over the event, thinking that they could have been killed is they had left their house, job, etc., a few minutes earlier or if it had been a different day when they were running late. The pedestrian then suffers emotional distress from obsessing over the event. Am I liable for their distress? Am I liable for what could have happened if circumstances had been different? I am guilty of running a stop sign, nothing more. The same can be applied to an accident that occurred, but did not result in serious injury. The person cannot be responsible for emotional distress from what might have happened. So, the two types of cases of negligent infliction of emotional distress that do not have any case at all are those which involve no clear negligent offender to cause distress and those which there is no actual event that causes the distress.     

Likewise, a problem at the core of emotional distress cases is the exact definition of emotional distress. In the “Judge’s Instructions to the Jury” on intentional infliction of emotional distress, the first requirement is that “the defendant engaged in outrageous, [unprivileged] conduct” (Behrens, 119), “the plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress”, and that “such outrageous . . . conduct of the defendant was a cause of the emotional distress suffered by the plaintiff” (Behrens, 120). What exactly is the meaning of outrageous conduct? What may be outrageous conduct may be different for different groups of people or different members of the jury. What determines the emotional distress to be severe? Again, there is a variance in what people could believe; some could think that a person should be more thick-skinned than others. In the case Corso v. Crawford Dog and Cat Hospital, Inc., the defendant sues for damages because she had arranged an extravagant burial for her dog, which was put to sleep, but received a casket containing the body of a different animal in its place, causing extreme distress due to the loss of her animal’s body (Behrens, 117). Many would see the act of placing the wrong animal in the casket as an outrageous capable of causing distress. But, some cold-hearted souls out there may not be able to see how such an action can cause emotional distress; they may not understand how a pet could be treated as a family member and, thus, would not see reasoning behind the emotional distress argument. There is much ambiguity in the law and its interpretation can be vastly different for different people. There are not concrete facts about the severity of emotional distress or solid definitions of outrageous actions. The decision is not as easy as looking at the fingerprints on a gun and the bullets that were recovered from the body that were fired from that gun. There is no hard evidence in an emotional distress case; the determination is solely up to the objectivity of the jurors. Since the key elements to determining a verdict for such a case are so malleable, suits for damages from the intentional infliction of emotional distress should not be allowed to be made.

            The prime argument against emotional distress cases that renders all other arguments mute is the fact that monetary reparations cannot cure emotional distress. Money will not bring a dead loved one back to life, it cannot be done. Money cannot replace the emotional bonds that were severed at the time of death; a person cannot give or receive affection from money they way they would from another person. Money will not make someone forget the feelings of “humiliation, indignity, mortification, worry, grief, anxiety, fright, and mental anguish” (Behrens, 114) and other such emotional distresses. The distress that is caused by incidents of intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress cannot be fixed by money. Sure, the victim can pay for counseling and psychological help to get over and put the event behind them; however, the money will never be able to eliminate the event from their mind.  Since money cannot directly fix the emotional damages, people should not be able to sue on the basis of emotional distress alone. They can sue for slander, defamation, or wrongful death and include the cost of counseling in the suit, but they should not be able to sue solely on emotional distress. Money is not the solution to emotional distress.

            Emotional distress cases are created from an ambiguous law, some with accusations that cannot be accepted, and they all claim that money will help solve the problem. These cases are unfounded and they should not be allowed to be heard in court. The judicial system is backlogged enough without the presence of these cases that do not really amount to any solutions. Emotional distress is part of life and it should be learned to be dealt with. Suing someone based solely on an integral part of life is not the right thing to do.