Which of the following is NOT an element generally required to establish a claim alleging the common law avil wrong for intentional infliction of emotional distress?
Seriously, who comes up with these weird answer choices? Being an employee of the defendant has nothing to do with intentional infliction of emotional distress. This exam is clearly testing our ability to spot the random outlier.
Well, option B is clearly the odd one out here. Intentional infliction of emotional distress is all about the defendant's actions, not the victim's employment status. I'd say that's a pretty straightforward answer.
B) The victim was an employee of the defendant? Huh, that's a bizarre requirement for intentional infliction of emotional distress. I thought it was all about the defendant's outrageous conduct, not their relationship to the victim.
Mitzie
7 days agoGaynell
21 days agoEdelmira
27 days agoKate
2 hours agoWillard
10 days agoGlenn
1 months agoFrederick
1 months agoGlenn
1 months ago