How could a claim for IIED without harm impact a restraining order?
In Massachusetts, individuals who believe they have suffered emotional distress due to another’s conduct may consider filing a civil lawsuit for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). This legal avenue is available even in the absence of physical harm, but the criteria for establishing such a case are stringent. The conduct in question must be “extreme and outrageous,” surpassing mere rudeness or offensiveness.
In Massachusetts, although an IIED claim and a restraining order are distinct legal actions, they can be related. This is because such claims are often only one part of an alleged victim’s legal strategy. The alleged victim may use the evidence from the IIED claim to help justify a restraining order sought under Chapter 209A (abuse prevention orders) or Chapter 258E (harassment prevention orders). As such, it is wise for those who are facing allegations of IIED without harm to understand how these claims are built and prepare to counter additional legal actions including attempts to get a restraining order.
What are the criteria for filling an IIED lawsuit?
To build an IIED case in Massachusetts, the alleged victim must demonstrate that the defendant’s behavior was extreme and outrageous. The law defines this as conduct that goes beyond all bounds of decency and is considered intolerable in a civilized community. It is not enough for the behavior to be simply rude or offensive; it must be so severe that it causes significant emotional distress.
The courts recognize the potential for frivolous claims and have implemented the strict definition noted above as an attempt to safeguard against false claims. With this definition in mind, when reviewing the claim, the court will look for the following four elements:
- Intent: The defendant must have intended to cause the distress or knew or should have known that the actions were likely to cause distress.
- Extreme and outrageous conduct: The behavior must be shocking and intolerable, not just annoying or upsetting.
- Action caused distress: The alleged victim must also establish that the defendant’s actions resulted in distress.
- Severe emotional distress: The distress experienced must be significant and demonstrable, that no “reasonable” individual could endure it.
Alleged victims must provide substantial evidence to support their allegations.
What are defense strategies to an IIED claim?
A strong defense strategy is one tailored to the details of the case and will likely employ several options. When used wisely, these strategies aim to challenge the plaintiff’s claims and demonstrate that the conduct did not meet the legal threshold for IIED. One option is to challenge the extremity of conduct. This would include an argument that the behavior was not extreme or outrageous and therefore does not meet the legal standard.
Another is to question intent or recklessness. For this strategy, the defendant would show that they did not intend to cause distress or act recklessly. The defendant could also dispute the severity of distress by providing evidence that the plaintiff’s emotional distress was not severe or significant.
Will these same strategies work to defeat a restraining order?
You can use the legal system to fight back if you are the subject of a restraining order. In Massachusetts, those who are the subject of the order generally will have a hearing with the judge within 10 days. It is important to abide by the order until the hearing as a violation of the order is a criminal offense. Prepare to fight back during the hearing by gathering evidence and building a defense strategy such as those discussed above.
These defense strategies highlight the importance of a thorough examination of the facts and circumstances surrounding the allegations. Each case is unique, and a tailored approach is essential for an effective defense. If the case escalates and leads to criminal charges, it is important to seek an attorney with experience in this area of defense to offer guidance and help prepare a defense to the specifics of the case.
