What is the Difference Between Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED) in California?

By Yosi Yahoudai
Founder and Managing Partner

Emotional distress resulting from someone’s actions can have a significant impact on a person’s well-being. In the legal realm, there are two distinct categories under which emotional distress claims are often filed: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED). J&Y Law will delve into the differences between these two legal concepts, specifically focusing on how they are defined and applied in the state of California. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for individuals seeking to pursue a legal claim for emotional distress, as it affects the burden of proof, available remedies, and the requirements to establish liability. 

What is Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)?

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) is a legal concept that recognizes the right of individuals to seek compensation when someone intentionally or recklessly causes them severe emotional distress. In California, IIED claims require meeting specific elements to establish liability:

1. Intentional or Reckless Conduct: To prove an IIED claim, the plaintiff must show that the defendant engaged in intentional or reckless conduct. This means the defendant acted purposefully with the intent to cause emotional harm or engaged in behavior that disregarded the well-being of others, knowing it could lead to emotional distress.
2. Extreme and Outrageous Conduct: The defendant’s conduct must be extreme and outrageous, surpassing the bounds of what is considered acceptable in society. Courts often set a high threshold for what qualifies as extreme and outrageous, recognizing that mere insults, annoyances, or trivial incidents generally do not meet this criterion.
3. Severe Emotional Distress: The plaintiff must have suffered severe emotional distress as a result of the defendant’s conduct. Severe emotional distress refers to significant mental anguish that goes beyond ordinary emotional responses to everyday challenges. It must be more than mere sadness, anxiety, or inconvenience, and can include symptoms such as depression, anxiety disorders, or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
4. Causation: There must be a direct causal link between the defendant’s conduct and the plaintiff’s severe emotional distress. The plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant’s intentional or reckless behavior was a substantial factor in causing their emotional distress.

An IIED claim can be challenging due to the high threshold set by the courts. The conduct must be truly extreme and outrageous, and the emotional distress must be severe and beyond what a reasonable person can be expected to endure. Courts often exercise caution to avoid opening the floodgates for frivolous claims and to protect freedom of speech and expression.

In IIED cases, courts may consider various factors when evaluating the defendant’s conduct, such as the context in which the conduct occurred, the power dynamics between the parties, and the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. Additionally, courts may take into account the duration and repetitiveness of the conduct and any known sensitivities or vulnerabilities of the plaintiff.

What is Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED)?

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED) is a legal concept that allows individuals to seek compensation when they suffer emotional distress as a result of another party’s negligence. In California, NIED claims can be established in two primary ways:

1. Direct Victim NIED: This occurs when the plaintiff directly witnesses the negligent infliction of physical harm on another person and, as a result, suffers emotional distress. To succeed in a direct victim NIED claim, the plaintiff must establish the following elements:
   1. Presence and Perception: The plaintiff must have been present at the scene of the accident and witnessed the negligent act or its immediate aftermath.
   2. Close Relationship: The plaintiff must have a close familial relationship with the injured party. California law recognizes spouses, parents, children, and certain other relatives as qualifying individuals.
   3. Severe Emotional Distress: The plaintiff must have suffered severe emotional distress that goes beyond what a reasonable person can be expected to endure.
2. Bystander NIED: In a bystander NIED claim, the plaintiff is not directly involved in the accident but witnesses the injury or death of a close family member as a result of the defendant’s negligence. To establish a bystander NIED claim, the plaintiff must demonstrate the following:
   1. Presence at the Scene: The plaintiff must have been present at the scene of the accident when the injury occurred or immediately thereafter.
   2. Perception of the Event: The plaintiff must have directly observed the accident or its immediate aftermath, such as witnessing severe injuries or distressing consequences.
   3. Close Relationship: The plaintiff must have a close relationship with the injured party, such as being a spouse, parent, child, or certain other family members.
   4. Severe Emotional Distress: The plaintiff must have suffered severe emotional distress as a result of witnessing the accident and its consequences.

In NIED claims, it’s important to establish that the defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the emotional distress. This typically requires showing that the defendant owed a duty of care to the injured party, breached that duty, and that the breach was the proximate cause of the accident and subsequent emotional distress.

Unlike intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) claims, where intent and extreme behavior are key, NIED claims focus on the defendant’s negligence and the resulting emotional harm. NIED claims often involve accidents such as car collisions, medical malpractice, or other incidents where negligence leads to physical harm and subsequent emotional distress for the plaintiff.

In NIED cases, plaintiffs may be eligible to seek compensatory damages, such as medical expenses for mental health treatment, therapy costs, and loss of income resulting from emotional distress. The availability and extent of damages will depend on the specific circumstances of the case.

J&Y Personal Injury Attorneys

In California, understanding the distinctions between Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED) is essential for individuals seeking legal recourse for emotional distress. While IIED requires intentional or reckless conduct causing severe emotional distress, NIED focuses on negligent actions resulting in emotional harm. The burden of proof, available remedies, and elements to establish liability differ between these two legal concepts. By consulting with one of our knowledgeable personal injury attorneys at J&Y Law, we can help you navigate the legal process, determine the most appropriate course of action, and seek appropriate compensation for the emotional distress you have endured. Contact our team today.

About the Author

Yosi Yahoudai is a founder and the managing partner of J&Y. His practice is comprised primarily of cases involving automobile and motorcycle accidents, but he also represents people in premises liability lawsuits, including suits alleging dangerous conditions of public property, third-party criminal conduct, and intentional torts. He also has expertise in cases involving product defects, dog bites, elder abuse, and sexual assault. He earned his Bachelor of Arts from the University of California and is admitted to practice in all California State Courts, and the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. If you have any questions about this article, you can contact Yosi by clicking here.