Negligent Infliction Emotional Distress

Summary

In Indiana, for a negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) claim under the third-party rule, physical harm to the direct victim is not required. The plaintiff must demonstrate extreme and outrageous conduct that caused significant emotional distress. Sociological jurisprudence emphasizes the social context of law, while demosprudence focuses on public demonstrations influencing legal processes. Unauthorized use of likeness and defamation are potential claims in the scenario involving Stan Lees Chemical Mfg. Co. Gwen should consider filing a 12(b)(6) motion or a demurrer for defense. President Bump must allege and prove actual, pecuniary, or monetary loss to sue for damages.

Full Conversation

Robert fires a rifle from the roof of a building. He is not firing with intent to hit anyone. He just thinks it would be fun to fire shots into the air since he just passed his L201 exam. Rena is sitting at a nearby park and a bullet flies past her head and sticks in a nearby wall. At the time, Rena was not aware that shots had happened; she was not injured or harmed. John saw Robert fire the rifle. He later learned one bullet almost hit Rena.(T/F) Based upon our class discussions and the facts presented, if John is Rena’s fiancé, he can properly sue for negligent infliction of emotional distress (3rd party rule):
In Indiana, for John to sue for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) under the 3rd party rule, the following must generally be met:
- The plaintiff must have witnessed or been aware of the injury.
- The plaintiff must have a close relationship with the victim.
- The conduct must have been extreme and outrageous.
Was John present at the scene when the bullet almost hit Rena?
yes
John may potentially have a case for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED) under Indiana law. Here are the general requirements:
- The plaintiff must have witnessed or been aware of the injury.
- The plaintiff must have a close relationship with the victim.
- The conduct must have been extreme and outrageous.
Would you like more information on how to proceed with such a claim?
for a negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) under the 3rd party does there have to be harm?
In Indiana, for a negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) claim under the 3rd party rule, actual physical harm to the direct victim is not a strict requirement. However, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the conduct was extreme and outrageous, and that it caused significant emotional distress.
Would you like more information on how to proceed with such a claim?
what is Demosprudence
Demosprudence is a legal concept focusing on the role of public demonstrations and social movements in shaping and influencing the law and legal processes. It emphasizes how collective action and public advocacy can drive legal change and affect judicial decisions.
Would you like more information on how demosprudence might relate to your situation?
what is Sociological Jurisprudence
Sociological Jurisprudence is a legal theory that emphasizes the social context of law. It looks at how law interacts with society and how social forces influence legal norms and practices. It suggests that law should evolve according to societal changes and needs.
Would you like more information on how this concept might apply to a specific legal issue you have?
Judge Knowingly, believes that a court should pay close attention to large well organized social movements when making decisions. She states that an example of this is the Civil Rights Movement and the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education (resulting in school desegregation). Based upon our class discussions, this legal thinking is most reflected in which of the following schools of jurisprudence: a. Sociological Jurisprudence. b. Demosprudence. c. Natural Law. d. Legal Positivism e. Legal realism
Based on the description of Judge Knowingly's legal thinking, it seems to most closely align with:
a. Sociological Jurisprudence
This school of thought emphasizes the need for law to consider and adapt to social movements and societal changes. Would you like to delve deeper into how sociological jurisprudence impacts legal decisions?
stan Lee’s Chemical Mfg. Co. ("Stan"), a large corporation based in New York, decided to use pictures of Gwen Stacy’s (Gwen), a world-famous actor, residing in California, on its billboards (and electronic billboards). The billboards appeared in every major city in the United States and Europe. There were also radio and television advertisements. However, Stan decided to use the pictures without her permission. Gwen is a strong environmentalist and Stan knew she would refuse to represent it. In fact, Stan asked her to represent it, and she vehemently refused, saying, “I would rather be dead than help you sell your filthy products."
This scenario involves potential claims for unauthorized use of likeness (right of publicity) and defamation.
- Unauthorized Use of Likeness: Gwen can sue Stan for using her image without permission, particularly since it caused financial loss (lost movie deal).
- Defamation: Stan might sue Gwen for her harmful statements, but her defense could be that they were opinions made in anger and not taken seriously.
Would you like more details on either claim?
Because of the Stan advertisements, Gwen lost a $*,*,* movie deal. When Gwen found out about the advertisements, she was furious. She held a press conference and immediately denied that she represented Stan. She went on to say that Stan’s toxic chemical products and waste had caused the death of thousands of children in the United States, Europe, and Africa (a blatantly untrue statement). Fortunately, most people knew she was just angry and letting off steam, so, the business did not suffer a loss. However, Stan’s CEO and board of directors were furious.Assume Stan sues for disparagement, based upon our class discussions and the facts presented, which of the following is true: a. Gwen should file a *(b)(*) motion. b. Gwen should file a demurrer. c. Gwen should file a so what motion d. Two of the above. e. All of the above.
Given the scenario, Gwen should consider the following:
- *(b)(*) Motion: This is a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. It challenges the legal sufficiency of the complaint.
- Demurrer: Similar to a *(b)(*) motion in states that use this term, it challenges the legal sufficiency of the allegations.
- So What Motion: This is not a standard legal term, so it is not applicable.
Answer: d. Two of the above (*(b)(*) motion and demurrer).
Would you like more details on how Gwen can proceed with her defense?
Assume President Bump wants to sue, based upon our class discussions and the facts presented, which of the following is true: a. He cannot sue unless he alleges (and can prove) actual damages. b. He cannot sue unless he alleges (and can prove) pecuniary loss. c. He cannot sue unless he alleges (and can prove) monetary loss. d. All of the above. e. None of the above.
Given the context of suing for damages, President Bump would generally need to allege and prove some form of loss or damage.
- Actual damages typically refer to proven harm or injury.
- Pecuniary loss involves financial or monetary loss.
- Monetary loss is another term for financial loss.
Thus, d. All of the above is the correct choice.
Would you like more specific legal information on the types of damages one can claim in Indiana?