Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress in Rhode Island

Background

In order to prevail on a claim for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, plaintiff is “required to prove extreme and outrageous conduct that intentionally or recklessly resulted in causing her severe emotional distress.” (See Vallinoto v. DiSandro (1997) 688 A.2d 830, 838.)

“In Rhode Island, a plaintiff must prove physical symptomatology resulting from the alleged improper conduct.” (See id.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“This jurisdiction has recognized a cause of action for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, and in doing so, [it] adopted the standard set forth in § 46 of the Restatement (Second) Torts.” (See Pelumi v. City of Woonsocket, C.A. No. PC 10-3875, at *1 (R.I. Super. May 9, 2016).)

“Severe emotional distress includes all highly unpleasant mental reactions, such as fright, horror, grief, shame, humiliation, embarrassment, anger, chagrin, disappointment, worry, and nausea however, [t]he law intervenes only where the distress inflicted is so severe that no reasonable man could be expected to endure it.” (See id.)

Prima Facie Case

“For liability to be imposed upon a defendant for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the following elements must be satisfied:

1. the conduct must be intentional or in reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress,
2. the conduct must be extreme and outrageous,
3. there must be a causal connection between the wrongful conduct and the emotional distress, and
4. the emotional distress in question must be severe." 

(See Pelumi v. City of Woonsocket, C.A. No. PC 10-3875, at *1 (R.I. Super. May 9, 2016).)

“In addition, a plaintiff is required to provide "at least some proof of medically established physical symptomatology for both intentional and negligent infliction of mental distress." (See id.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine issue of material fact is evident from 'the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits if any,' and the motion justice finds that the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.” (See Burdick v. Town of Westerly, C.A. No. WC-2016-0043, at *1 (R.I. Super. Jan. 15, 2021).)

“In considering a party's Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law, the trial justice must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, without weighing the evidence or evaluating the credibility of the witnesses, and draw from the record all reasonable inferences that support the position of the nonmoving party." (See Cook v. First Student, Inc., C.A. No. P2000-5861, at *4 (R.I. Super. Mar. 7, 2007).)

“If, after such a review, there remain factual issues upon which reasonable persons might draw different conclusions, the motion for judgment as a matter of law must be denied.” (See Cook v. First Student, Inc., C.A. No. P2000-5861, at *4 (R.I. Super. Mar. 7, 2007).)

“If, on the other hand, no relevant issues of fact exist and defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, then the trial justice should grant the motion and dismiss the complaint.” (See id.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “both the torts of negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress require that plaintiff allege and prove that medically established physical symptomatology accompany the distress.” (See Pelumi v. City of Woonsocket, C.A. No. PC 10-3875, at *1 (R.I. Super. May 9, 2016).)

It is also well settled that “where mental injury is the sole complaint, recovery for direct damages may be allowed if the jurisdiction recognizes a tort for infliction of mental distress. Such an action however, is not for legal malpractice but for a wrong intended to inflict emotional injuries.” (See Vallinoto v. DiSandro (1997) 688 A.2d 830, 839.)